UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1602
JORGE ALEXANDER TORRES-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 8, 2016 Decided: December 13, 2016
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn
Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ilissa M. Gould, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Alexander Torres-Mendoza, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
In the argument section of his brief, Torres claims that he
was threatened and beaten in El Salvador on account of his
political opinion. He does not challenge the agency’s finding
that he failed to establish a cognizable particular social group
or otherwise argue that he is entitled to asylum on account of his
membership in his proposed group. He also fails to challenge the
agency’s denial of his request for protection under the CAT. He
has therefore abandoned these challenges on appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain . . .
appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of
[Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment
of that claim on appeal.”); see also Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d
561, 565 n.2 (4th Cir. 2013).
2
Turning to Torres’ claim of political persecution, Torres
incorrectly states that the Board concluded that (1) the threats
and beating he received at hands of Jose Urias and two unknown men
in El Salvador did not rise to the level of past persecution; and
(2) he failed to establish a nexus between these incidents and his
political opinions. The Board clearly declined to review “the
level of harm and nexus issues” in regard to Torres’ claim that he
was subjected to persecution on account of his political opinion
and instead upheld the IJ’s denial of relief on the sole ground
that Torres failed to meet his burden of establishing that the
Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to protect him.
Because Torres is claiming that he fears persecution at the
hands of private actors, as opposed to the government of El
Salvador, he must establish that the government cannot or will not
control the offenders. See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 198
(4th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n applicant alleging past persecution must
establish either that the government was responsible for the
persecution or that it was unable or unwilling to control the
persecutors.”). “Whether a government is unable or unwilling to
control private actors is a factual question that must be resolved
based on the record in each case.” Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784
F.3d 944, 951 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration and internal quotation
marks omitted).
3
We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to the agency’s finding that Torres failed to establish
that the government is unable or unwilling to control the private
actors in this case, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny
the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In
re Torres-Mendoza (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2016). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4