
    Esfandiar Nikbakhsh TALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Respondent.
    No. 05-72621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 14, 2010.
    Filed June 1, 2010.
    Bernadette W. Connolly, Esquire, Law Offices of Bernadette W. Connolly, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    AZP-District Director, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, John C. Cunningham, Esquire, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and PRO, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Philip M. Pro, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Esfandiar Nikbakhsh Tali (“Tali”), a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny Tali withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and we deny the petition for review.

Because the BIA affirmed the IJ and dismissed Tali’s appeal without any additional reasoning, the Court reviews the IJ’s decision as if it were the final agency action. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005). On the record before us, we cannot say that the IJ relied on improper evidence in determining that Tali was convicted of a “particularly serious” crime and thus is ineligible for withholding of removal. See Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir.2010).

The IJ also did not err in denying Tali deferral of removal under CAT. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Tali failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he is returned to Iran. See Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 571 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2009); Huang v. Ashcroft, 890 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     