Case Name: Jose CARILLO-DAVALOS, AKA Jose Carrillo-Davalos, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 667 F. App'x 942
Docket Number: No. 14-72806
Parties: Jose CARILLO-DAVALOS, AKA Jose Carrillo-Davalos, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 942–943

Head Matter:
Jose CARILLO-DAVALOS, AKA Jose Carrillo-Davalos, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72806
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 3, 2016
Wayne Spindler, Tarzana, CA, for Petitioner
Julia Tyler, Esquire, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Carillo-Davalos, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Carillo-Davalos does not challenge the BIA's dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned."), We reject Carillo-Davalos' contention that the BIA's decision was ambiguous with respect to his asylum claim. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Carillo-Davalos did not establish it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if returned to Mexico. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner must show that it is more probable than not that he would suffer future persecution).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Carillo-Davalos' contentions concerning cancellation of removal or CAT because he failed to raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.