Dominga TORRES ARREOLA; et al., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: November 26, 2019
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
William Joseph Marvin, Esquire, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners Stephanie E. Beckett, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
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 (“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 CAT relief. See Corro-Barragan, 718 F.3d at 1177 n.5.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.