Nelson Antonio Reynosa- Galicia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NELSON ANTONIO REYNOSA-
GALICIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72915
Agency No. A070-919-134
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Reynosa-Galicia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to remand,
and dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
JAN 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72915
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). The court reviews for
abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to remand. de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales,
503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Reynosa-Galicia does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Reynosa-Galicia’s
withholding of removal claim because Reynosa-Galicia failed to establish that an
enumerated ground was one central reason he was attacked. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009).
Reynosa-Galicia has not raised arguments challenging the agency’s denial of
his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60 (issues not supported
by argument are deemed abandoned).
Finally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
remand because Reynosa-Galicia did not present additional evidence warranting a

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72915
remand. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal
citation omitted) (“Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue
relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new
evidence would likely change the result in the case.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --