NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR MENDOZA-MARIN, No. 14-71746
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-670-881
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Mendoza-Marin, 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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, Mendoza-Marin failed to establish past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past
persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (quotation and citation
omitted); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060 (petitioner did not establish harm to
associates was part of ‘a pattern of persecution closely tied to’ petitioner) (citation
omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Mendoza-Marin failed to establish he would face a clear probability of future
persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, his withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, Mendoza-Marin makes no substantive arguments challenging the
agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
2 14-71746
1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument
are deemed abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71746