Esteban ARRIOJA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: November 13, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Anna M. Hysell, North County, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anna E. Juarez, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Esteban Arrioja-Vazquez, 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 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Arrioja-Vazquez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a protected ground. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that “mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”); Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). In his opening brief, Arrioja-Vazquez does not challenge the BIA's determinations as to his political opinion claims. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, Arrioja-Vazquez's withholding of removal claim fails.
We do not reach Arrioja-Vazquez's contentions as to adverse credibility or corroboration. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court's review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
In his opening brief, Arrioja-Vazquez does not challenge the BIA's determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ's denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
As stated in the court's November 17, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
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.