Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dominga TORRES ARREOLA; et al., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-71336

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.


Copied to clipboard