NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO ORTEGA CHAVEZ, AKA No. 18-71575
Eduardo Chavez, AKA Eduardo Chavez-
Ortega, AKA Edwardo Chavez-Ortega, Agency No. A076-694-022
AKA Eduardo Chavis-Ortega, AKA
Eduardo Ortega, AKA Eduardo Ortega
Chavez, AKA Sapo, MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Ortega Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Ortega Chavez fails to challenge the agency’s
determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime and is therefore
ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder,
718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief
resulted in waiver). Thus, Ortega Chavez’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Ortega Chavez failed to show it is more likely than not he will
be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was
not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT
relief).
We reject Ortega Chavez’s contention that the agency violated his due
2 18-71575
process rights by failing to consider his evidence. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71575