United States v. 2020-07-22 | 17-72825 | JESUS ROJAS-AMBRIZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS ROJAS-AMBRIZ, AKA Jesus
Ambriz Rojas,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-72825

Agency No. A098-388-328

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Rojas-Ambriz, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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

*
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 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
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). We deny
the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Rojas-Ambriz fails to challenge the agency’s
dispositive determination that he failed to establish it is more likely than not he
would be persecuted in Mexico. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his
withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rojas-Ambriz 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); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant failed to show
particularized threat of torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.