NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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