Jorge Resendiz-Mejia v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS RESENDIZ-MEJIA, No. 18-72561
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-228-035
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Luis Resendiz-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus
is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual
*
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).
findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We review
de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Cruz
Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
Resendiz-Mejia does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed
to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected
ground. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Resendiz-Mejia
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828
F.3d at 836-37.
We reject as unsupported by the record Resendiz-Mejia’s contentions that
the IJ abused his discretion or violated Resendiz-Mejia’s due process rights by
“disallowing” testimony during his reasonable fear hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-72561