NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ALFREDO ZENDEJAS FRAUSTO, No. 18-72556
Petitioner, Agency No. A204-627-374
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.
Alfredo Zendejas Frausto, 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”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zendejas Frausto’s
request for a continuance where he failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider).
In his opening brief Zendejas Frausto does not make any arguments
challenging the BIA’s conclusion that his proposed social group of “Mexican
nationals returning to Mexico after a lengthy period of residence in the United
States” was not cognizable, and that he waived his political opinion claim on
appeal to the BIA. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.
1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned.”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zendejas
Frausto failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on
account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2011) (holding that a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute
persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus, Zendejas Frausto’s asylum
2 18-72556
and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Zendejas Frausto failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no
likelihood of torture established).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72556
Alfredo Zendejas Frausto v. William Barr
Combined Opinion