NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL PINEDA GALDAMEZ, No. 20-72283
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-639-952
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Pineda Galdamez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
*
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).
jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Pineda Galdamez does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that he waived any challenge to the to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir.
2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, Pineda Galdamez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (asylum and
withholding of removal claims failed in the absence of credible testimony).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Pineda Galdamez’s remaining
contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Pineda Galdamez’s claim was based on the same testimony found not credible, and
he does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is
more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence
of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
2 20-72283
Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the
petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-72283