NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARA VARGAS RAMIREZ; et al., No. 18-73156
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-930-455
A208-930-456
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
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.
Sara Vargas Ramirez and her minor child, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, petitioners fail to challenge in
their opening brief the BIA’s determination that they did not establish past
persecution and that they waived before the BIA any challenge to the IJ’s future
persecution finding. 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). Petitioners also fail to challenge the BIA’s determination that they
waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Id. Thus, petitioners’
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not meaningfully address
the issues raised.
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination and corroborative evidence because the BIA did not reach those
issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(review limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA). We lack jurisdiction to
2 18-73156
consider petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights because
they failed to raise the claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 18-73156