MADRIGAL v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Guadalupe Mendoza Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

We reject, as unsupported by the record, Mendoza Madrigal’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights or otherwise failed to adequately review the asylum officer’s determination. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Apart from her due process contentions, Mendoza Madrigal does not challenge the IJ’s determination that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and therefore has waived any such challenge. 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.