NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO CORDOVA-CHAVEZ, Nos. 15-72660
16-70304
Petitioner,
Agency No. A205-311-600
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Rodolfo Cordova-Chavez, 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 relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 15-72660), and 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).
BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen (petition No. 16-70304). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th
Cir. 2016). In 15-72660, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review. In 16-70304, we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cordova-Chavez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Cordova-Chavez’s unexhausted contention that the IJ erred in stating that
a corrupt police officer was not a public official acting in an official capacity. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA.”).
Cordova-Chavez does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the
agency’s dispositive determination that his application for asylum was untimely
filed and that his proposed particular social groups were not cognizable. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). Thus, Cordova-
Chavez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2 15-72660
In light of this disposition, we do not address Cordova-Chavez’s contentions
regarding the agency’s particularly serious crime determination. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results).
Cordova-Chavez does not raise any contentions challenging the agency’s
dispositive determination that his motion to reopen was untimely filed. See Lopez-
Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
No. 15-72660: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 16-70304: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72660