NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVARO E. COLATO GARCIA, AKA No. 19-70979 Alvaro Ezequiel Colato, AKA Alvaro Colato-Garcia, Agency No. A075-687-265 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Alvaro E. Colato Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Colato Garcia does not challenge in his opening brief the agency’s determination that he is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, withholding of removal under CAT, and cancellation of removal. Thus, those issues are waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Colato Garcia failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). The motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until issuance of the mandate or further order of the 2 19-70979 court. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-70979 19-70979 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Alvaro Colato Garcia v. William Barr 23 October 2019 Agency Unpublished 7f887d732c0b976507ebe2eaa363e879ace0582a
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals