Martin Mendoza-Puentes v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN MENDOZA-PUENTES, No. 12-73407
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-762-465
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Martin Mendoza-Puentes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Mendoza-Puentes does not make any arguments in his opening brief
challenging the agency’s denial of his asylum claim as untimely. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned).
The BIA determined that Mendoza-Puentes failed to establish the
government is unable or unwilling to protect him. The record does not compel the
conclusion that the government is unable or unwilling to control the people he
fears. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005); see also
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to report
non-governmental persecution due to belief that police would do nothing did not
establish that government was unwilling or unable to control persecutors). Thus,
Mendoza-Puentes’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, Mendoza-Puentes does not raise any arguments to support his
statement that the IJ failed to apply mandatory presumptions and applied erroneous
legal standards. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73407