Hurias MacHuca Valencia v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HURIAS MACHUCA VALENCIA, AKA No. 18-70104
Lazaro Machuca Valencia, AKA Manuel
Machuca Valencia, Agency No. A098-959-174
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
HURIAS MACHUCA VALENCIA, AKA No. 18-72718
Lazaro Machuca Valencia, AKA Manuel
Machuca Valencia, AKA Lazaro Machucha Agency No. A098-959-174
Valencia, AKA Manuel Machucha Valencia,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted June 5, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hurias Machuca Valencia (“Machuca”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his
application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.
1. Machuca made only passing reference to the BIA’s determination that
he could safely relocate within Mexico in his opening brief to this Court and
therefore waives his right to challenge it on appeal. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594
F.3d 701, 703 n.1 (9th Cir 2010) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned.” (quoting Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259 (9th Cir. 1996))). The relocation finding is dispositive as to fear of future
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i) (“In cases in which the applicant has not
established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that
it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate . . . .”). We therefore will not
consider Machuca’s separate argument that the BIA erred in failing to find that he
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Machuca’s motion to
reopen where Machuca did not include with the motion any application for the relief
sought or a supporting declaration.1 See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion . . . .”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings for the
purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the
appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.”).
PETITION DENIED.
1
Machuca’s motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 23) and motion to strike (Dkt. No.
34) are DENIED as moot.
3