Petrona Simon Mateo De Marcos v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETRONA SIMON MATEO DE No. 17-73377
MARCOS; et al.,
Agency Nos. A208-600-551
Petitioners, A208-600-552
A208-600-553
v. A208-181-139
A202-065-170
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges
Petrona Simon Mateo de Marcos, her husband, and their three children,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not make any argument that responds to the BIA’s dispositive
conclusion that they waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that they did
not demonstrate that any harm they experienced, even considered in the aggregate,
rose to the level of persecution. 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). We do not address Petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of
their past persecution claim because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds.
See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In
reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by
that agency.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish the
requisite likelihood of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus,
Petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
they failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
2
F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Petitioners failed to show that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1201 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding substantial
evidence supported the denial of CAT relief because the evidence did not
demonstrate that it was more likely than not that petitioner would be tortured if
returned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3