NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELBA ARACELY VASQUEZ-MEDINA; No. 18-72217 et al., Agency Nos. A206-733-808 Petitioners, A206-733-809 A206-733-810 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Elba Aracely Vasquez-Medina, her minor daughter, and minor niece, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. The agency denied petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims based on their failure to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Honduras was or would be on account of a protected ground. In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that they failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a 2 18-72217 general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-72217 18-72217 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Elba Vasquez-Medina v. William Barr 19 July 2019 Agency Unpublished f04e5fbef89b7420b32ec8d3f98ee4a8a41f3d72
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals