NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO PENA CASTILLO, No. 15-71701
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-526-997
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Pena Castillo, 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the threat of
harm Pena Castillo experienced in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this
incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). As to his fear of future
harm, Pena Castillo does not contest the agency’s conclusion that he failed to
demonstrate it would be unreasonable for him to relocate within Mexico. 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). Thus, we
deny the petition as to Pena Castillo’s withhold of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Pena Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that petitioner’s claims of
possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-71701