Juan Torres Valencia v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MANUEL TORRES VALENCIA, No. 17-72618 Petitioner, Agency No. A090-521-994 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Juan Manuel Torres Valencia, 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 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Torres Valencia fails to challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to those claims. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Torres-Valencia 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Torres Valencia’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the country conditions evidence submitted. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that petitioner must overcome presumption that BIA considered all the relevant evidence). Torres Valencia’s motion to hold the case in abeyance (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-72618