Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisco Antonio VARGAS-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71197.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2010.
    Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Holly Smith, Esquire, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Antonio Vargas-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Because Vargas-Ramirez failed to exhaust any challenge to the IJ’s determination that he is ineligible for asylum due to an aggravated felony conviction, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004), we dismiss the petition as to Vargas-Ramirez’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Vargas-Ramirez failed to demonstrate past persecution based upon visits to the family home by unknown persons. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). In the opening brief, Vargas-Ramirez fails to argue that he can otherwise demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly, Vargas-Ramirez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Vargas-Ramirez fails to raise any substantive arguments with respect to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.