Court Opinion

ID: 7802919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-23 20:00:59.084458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:32.639829
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 23 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN VARGAS-DIEGUEZ, AKA Juan                   No.    16-72183
Vargas,
                                                Agency No. A200-154-430
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Vargas-Dieguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). 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.

       In his opening brief, Vargas-Dieguez does not contest, and therefore waives,

the BIA’s determination that he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of his asylum

claim as time barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th

Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived).

       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vargas-

Dieguez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See

Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future

persecution was not objectively reasonable). Thus, Vargas-Dieguez’s withholding

of removal claim fails.

       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Vargas-Dieguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

                                          2                                    16-72183
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                  3                                  16-72183