Francisco Galindo Santiago v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO GALINDO SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70997
Agency No. A205-318-377
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Galindo Santiago, 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 application for
asylum, withholding of removal and relief 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).
FILED
JUL 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70997
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770
F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Galindo Santiago does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s determination that his past harm did not rise to the
level of persecution. 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). He also does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any
challenge to the IJ’s determination that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See id. Galindo Santiago’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims thus fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Galindo Santiago’s remaining
contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Galindo Santiago failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70997
The BIA did not err in concluding the IJ did not violate Galindo Santiago’s
right to due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(prejudice required to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --