Marcelo Roel Esteban Cisneros, a.k.a. Mario Lopez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARCELO ROEL ESTEBAN
CISNEROS, a.k.a. Mario Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70786
Agency No. A071-588-200
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 26, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Marcelo Cisneros, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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
FILED
JUN 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history1
underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.
11-70786 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s
factual findings for substantial evidence, Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.1
Cisneros does not challenge the BIA’s holding that he was convicted of an
aggravated felony, and he therefore is ineligible for asylum. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived); see also 8 U.S.C. §§
1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1158(b)(2)(B)(i); Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110,
1111-12 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that a conviction for an aggravated felony
makes an alien statutorily ineligible for asylum).
Cisneros contends that, when deciding that he was ineligible for withholding
of removal, the IJ and BIA were required to determine whether his prior conviction
constituted a particularly serious crime. We reject that contention because it was
not necessary for either the IJ or the BIA to determine whether Cisneros was
convicted of a particularly serious crime since both the IJ and the BIA determined
that Cisneros failed to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal. See
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70786 3
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”); see also Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Cisneros relies on Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989), to argue
that he is entitled to CAT relief because of his past experiences in Guatemala. This
reliance on Chen is misplaced. Chen has been codified at 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A), which is limited to claims for asylum and does not apply to
applicants such as Cisneros who have been convicted of aggravated felonies. See 8
C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A) & (c)(2)(i)(D). Cisneros does not contend that the
record compels a finding that it is more likely that not that, if he is removed, he
will be tortured. He therefore has waived that issue. See Martinez-Serrano, 94
F.3d at 1259-60.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --