Cesar Zunun-Vazquez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR AUGUSTO ZUNUN-VAZQUEZ, No. 15-70506
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-807-091
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Augusto Zunun-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
As to asylum, we lack jurisdiction to consider Zunun-Vazquez’s contentions
that he failed to raise to the agency, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency), and Zunun-Vazquez does not contend the BIA erred in finding that his
asylum claim was not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d
1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in
waiver).
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Zunun-Vazquez failed to establish that his past harm rose to the
level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)
(persecution is an “extreme concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or
harm”); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse
the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion,
but compels it[.]”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
Zunun-Vazquez failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Zunun-Vazquez’s
withholding of removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we do not reach
2 15-70506
Zunun-Vazquez’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of his withholding of
removal claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004)
(courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results
they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Zunun-Vazquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The record does not support Zunun-Vazquez’s contentions that the BIA
failed to consider evidence, ignored arguments, or otherwise erred in its analysis of
his claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency
need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-70506