NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VILMA LETICIA SANTOS DIAZ, No. 15-73452
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-824-042
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Vilma Leticia Santos Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of
removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and administrative
*
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).
closure. We have jurisdiction 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). We deny in part and grant in the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Santos Diaz fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that she failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances
to excuse her untimely asylum application. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, her asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Santos Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Santos Diaz points to no error in the agency’s denial of administrative
closure.
We reject Santos Diaz’s contention that the BIA violated due process by
failing to rule on her “motion to remand” as raised in her appeal brief to the BIA.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice
to prevail on a due process claim).
2 15-73452
As to Santos Diaz’s withholding of removal claim, this court’s decision in
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), came down after the
BIA’s decision. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to withholding of
removal, and remand this claim to the BIA to determine the impact, if any, of this
decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; and
REMANDED.
3 15-73452