Case Name: Vera Lucia SANTOS DA SILVA; Ezequiel Rosendo Santos Da Silva, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 13-70885
Parties: Vera Lucia SANTOS DA SILVA; Ezequiel Rosendo Santos Da Silva, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
Vera Lucia SANTOS DA SILVA; Ezequiel Rosendo Santos Da Silva, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70885.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Decided Nov. 24, 2015.
Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant Director, Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vera Lucia Santos Da Silva and Eze-quiel Rosendo Santos Da Silva, natives and citizens of Brazil, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency found petitioners' presumption of future persecution was rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). Petitioners do not challenge this dispositive determination in their counseled opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.