NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABIER HESMI MONGE; CANDELARIA No. 18-73471 LOPEZ MORALES, Agency Nos. A206-270-449 Petitioners, A206-270-443 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Gabier Hesmi Monge and Candelaria Lopez Morales, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Petitioners do not meaningfully challenge the agency’s determination that they failed to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim because they failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding IJ error or persecution based on political opinion because they did not exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 18-73471 18-73471 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Gabier Hesmi Monge v. William Barr 18 December 2019 Agency Unpublished 17831227388052e219a15ab517c6afcab18f98ba
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals