Isalia Salas Garcia v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISALIA SALAS GARCIA; et al., No. 18-73113
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-602-421
A208-602-422
v. A208-602-423
A208-602-424
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A208-602-425
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Isalia Salas Garcia and her four minor children, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not meaningfully challenge, and
therefore waive, the agency’s dispositive basis for denying asylum and withholding
of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Even if not waived, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish that any harm they experienced or fear in Mexico was
or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground.”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
We do not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding whether their past harm
rose to the level of persecution. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185,
1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the [agency] only on grounds set forth in the
opinion under review.”).
2 18-73113
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will 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).
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of
their motion to remand. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-73113