NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN NIETO IZAZAGA, No. 16-70652
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-782-805
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and ALSUP,*** District Judge.
Martin Nieto Izazaga, 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 withholding of removal
*
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).
***
The Honorable William Alsup, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332
F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition.
Nieto Izazaga waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of his
withholding of removal claim by failing to argue it in his brief. See Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013). The petition as to that claim is
therefore denied.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of his deferral of removal
claim under CAT because Nieto Izazaga did not establish that it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
Mexican government. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2008)
(concluding that the conditions in the Mexican mental health system did not
amount to torture because they did not exist out of a deliberate intent to inflict
harm). And, while Nieto Izazaga’s country conditions evidence documented a
general problem of violence and corruption in Mexico, it does not compel the
conclusion that he would face a sufficiently particularized threat of torture to
warrant CAT relief. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th Cir.
2008).
We do not reach Nieto Izazaga’s contentions regarding the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility determination, because the BIA did not adopt the
2 16-70652
immigration judge’s decision or discuss credibility. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d
1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the court reviews only the BIA decision
where the BIA wrote its own decision and did not adopt the immigration judge’s
decision); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting
that our review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-70652