NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOMINGA TORRES ARREOLA; et al., No. 19-71336 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-914-129 A206-914-130 v. A206-914-131 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Dominga Torres Arreola and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“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), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners’ past harm did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute persecution”). In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show that they could not safely relocate to another part of Mexico or that it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. 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. In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding asylum and withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of 2 19-71336 CAT relief. See Corro-Barragan, 718 F.3d at 1177 n.5. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-71336 19-71336 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Dominga Torres Arreola v. William Barr 26 November 2019 Agency Unpublished 16a678dc4147789ad4246d586e95dd341948d6e4
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals