Dominga Torres Arreola; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGA TORRES ARREOLA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71336
Agency Nos. A206-914-129
A206-914-130
A206-914-131
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Dominga Torres Arreola and her two minor children, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71336
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners’ past
harm did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918
F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague
ones, rarely constitute persecution”). In their opening brief, petitioners do not
challenge the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show that they could
not safely relocate to another part of Mexico or that it would be unreasonable to
expect them to do so. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5
(9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding asylum and withholding of removal. 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).
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71336
CAT relief. See Corro-Barragan, 718 F.3d at 1177 n.5.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --