Jose Siliezar Hernandez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS SILIEZAR HERNANDEZ, No. 17-71413
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-812-697
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Siliezar Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
In his counseled opening brief, Siliezar Hernandez does not raise, and
therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determinations that his
past harm did not rise to the level of persecution and his future fear was not
objectively reasonable. 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.”). Thus, Siliezar Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Siliezar Hernandez failed to show 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as
unsupported by the record Siliezar Hernandez’s contention that the agency applied
an incorrect standard or otherwise erred in its CAT analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-71413