NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN FERNANDEZ-LEDESMA, No. 14-73041
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-175-088
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Martin Fernandez-Ledesma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fernandez-
Ledesma failed to establish 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) (harm based on personal retribution is not
persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus, Fernandez-Ledesma’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fernandez-Ledesma’s
remaining contentions regarding 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).
In his opening brief Fernandez-Ledesma does not raise any arguments, and
therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73041