ORTEGA OROZCO v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Ortega-Orozco, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).¹

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo whether a petitioner has been afforded due process. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not support Ortega-Orozco's claim that the agency failed to consider relevant country conditions evidence or otherwise failed to review and consider the evidence presented. See, e.g., Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894-95 (9th Cir. 2018) (“There is no indication that the IJ or BIA did not consider all the evidence before them.”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Ortega-Orozco failed to show he will more likely than not be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2019).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ortega-Orozco did not meaningfully challenge the IJ's determination that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal in his brief to the BIA or in his opening brief. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims); 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).