NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS MENDEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 14-72256
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-373-407
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Mendez-Sanchez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1952. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th
Cir. 2018). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Mendez-Sanchez
established only a personal dispute and failed to show that any harm he
experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground.
See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (“‘Purely
personal retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of [a protected
ground].’” (quoting Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1171, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000)). Thus,
his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We reject Mendez-Sanchez’s argument that the IJ violated his due process
rights by failing to fully develop the factual record regarding the timeliness of his
asylum application and a nexus to a protected ground. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 741
(standard for prevailing on a due process claim).
In his opening brief, Mendez-Sanchez fails to challenge the agency’s denial
of his CAT claim. Thus, Mendez-Sanchez has waived any such challenge. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issue not raised in
opening brief is waived).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Mendez-Sanchez’s remaining
2
contentions as to his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3