Jose Carillo-Davalos v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CARILLO-DAVALOS, AKA Jose No. 14-72806
Carrillo-Davalos,
Agency No. A205-575-971
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Carillo-Davalos, 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
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Carillo-Davalos does not challenge the BIA’s
dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief
that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). We reject Carillo-
Davalos’ contention that the BIA’s decision was ambiguous with respect to his
asylum claim. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
because Carillo-Davalos did not establish it is more likely than not that he would
be persecuted if returned to Mexico. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185
(9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner must show that it
is more probable than not that he would suffer future persecution).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Carillo-Davalos’ contentions
concerning cancellation of removal or CAT because he failed to raise them before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
2 14-72806
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72806