Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar MENDOZA-MARIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71746
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    June 22, 2016
    Samuel W. Asbury, Asbury Law Offices, Gresham, OR, for Petitioner.
    Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Mendoza-Marin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if credible, Mendoza-Marin failed to establish past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone .., constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (quotation and citation omitted); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060 (petitioner did not establish harm to associates was part of ‘a pattern of persecution closely tied to’ petitioner) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Mendozar-Marin failed to establish he would face a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, Mendoza-Marin makes no substantive arguments challenging the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.