NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HURIAS MACHUCA VALENCIA, AKA No. 18-70104 Lazaro Machuca Valencia, AKA Manuel Machuca Valencia, Agency No. A098-959-174 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. HURIAS MACHUCA VALENCIA, AKA No. 18-72718 Lazaro Machuca Valencia, AKA Manuel Machuca Valencia, AKA Lazaro Machucha Agency No. A098-959-174 Valencia, AKA Manuel Machucha Valencia, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted June 5, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Hurias Machuca Valencia (“Machuca”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Machuca made only passing reference to the BIA’s determination that he could safely relocate within Mexico in his opening brief to this Court and therefore waives his right to challenge it on appeal. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 703 n.1 (9th Cir 2010) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.” (quoting Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996))). The relocation finding is dispositive as to fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i) (“In cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate . . . .”). We therefore will not consider Machuca’s separate argument that the BIA erred in failing to find that he ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 has a well-founded fear of future persecution. 2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Machuca’s motion to reopen where Machuca did not include with the motion any application for the relief sought or a supporting declaration.1 See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion . . . .”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.”). PETITION DENIED. 1 Machuca’s motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 23) and motion to strike (Dkt. No. 34) are DENIED as moot. 3 18-70104 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Hurias MacHuca Valencia v. William Barr 9 June 2020 Agency Unpublished 8f228d5d8cd631965ed826a753430666d55351a2
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals