Francisco Antonio Vargas- Ramirez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ANTONIO VARGAS-
RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71197
Agency No. A094-456-502
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71197 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --