Josephina Garcia-Abarca v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPHINA GARCIA-ABARCA, No. 18-71120
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-425-166
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Josephina Garcia-Abarca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have 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 her opening brief, Garcia-Abarca does not make any argument
challenging the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ improperly found Garcia-Abarca
suffered past persecution where the claimed mistreatment did not occur in her
proposed country of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-
80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that petitioner waived any challenge to an issue that
was not argued in his opening brief).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Abarca
failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that the possibility
of future persecution was “too speculative”). Thus, Garcia-Abarca’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia-Abarca failed to show it is more likely than not she would 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 reject as unsupported by the record Garcia-Abarca’s contention that the
IJ failed to accord proper evidentiary weight to her testimony.
2 18-71120
As stated in the court’s July 12, 2018 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71120