NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOE ARIAS ORDONEZ, No. 14-70780
Petitioner, BIA-1: A079-637-965
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,*** Chief
District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States Chief District Judge
for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Noe Arias Ordonez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application seeking withholding of
removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3), and seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).
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 BIA’s adverse decision on withholding of
removal, because Ordonez failed to establish a clear probability that he would be
persecuted if returned to Mexico. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th
Cir. 2003) (holding that, to qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that it is more probable than not that he would suffer future persecution).
The threats made against Ordonez occurred in the United States, and the alleged
harm he faces in Mexico is speculative. We reject Ordonez’s contention that the
BIA erred in its analysis of this issue. Thus, Ordonez’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Finally, although Ordonez sought protection under the CAT at the BIA, he
2
has waived review of this claim because he has not “specifically and distinctly
argued” the CAT issue in his opening brief. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409
F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3