NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTEBAN ARRIOJA-VAZQUEZ, No. 15-72759 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-157-518 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Esteban Arrioja-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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). the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arrioja- Vazquez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a protected ground. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that “mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”); Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). In his opening brief, Arrioja-Vazquez does not challenge the BIA’s determinations as to his political opinion claims. 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). Thus, Arrioja-Vazquez’s withholding of removal claim fails. We do not reach Arrioja-Vazquez’s contentions as to adverse credibility or corroboration. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). In his opening brief, Arrioja-Vazquez does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. 2 15-72759 As stated in the court’s November 17, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72759 15-72759 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Esteban Arrioja-Vazquez v. William Barr 13 November 2020 Agency Unpublished f8932b6f9aea20e0bbe1088a12607e0a6f49e56c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals