VANXAY CHANTHA, AKA Sai Chantah, AKA Vancay Chantha, AKA Chantha Sai v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VANXAY CHANTHA, AKA Sai Chantah,
AKA Vancay Chantha, AKA Chantha Sai,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72494
Agency No. A071-021-868
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Vanxay Chantha, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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
DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-72494
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). We deny the
petition for review.
Chantha does not meaningfully challenge the agency’s particularly serious
crime determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). See also Maldonado v. Morales, 556 F.3d 1037, 1048 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“Arguments made in passing and inadequately briefed are waived.”). Thus,
Chantha’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Chantha failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Laos. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --