Pedro Mulul-Tista v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO MULUL-TISTA, No. 19-70695
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-652-027
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Mulul-Tista, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 Guatemala and thus is
not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for
*
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).
substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016).
We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Mulul-Tista does not challenge the IJ’s determination
that he failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Mulul-Tista failed
to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia,
828 F.3d at 836-37.
We reject as unsupported by the record Mulul-Tista’s contentions that the IJ
applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-70695