Opinion
No. 14-72111
06-14-2019
JOSE ALCIDES CANAS-UMANZOR, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A099-580-479 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jose Alcides Canas-Umanzor, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 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 his opening brief, Canas-Umanzor fails to challenge the agency's determination that his asylum application was untimely. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus, Canas-Umanzor's asylum claim fails.
Canas-Umanzor does not challenge the agency's finding that he failed to establish past persecution. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Canas-Umanzor failed to establish that he will more likely than not be subject to persecution if returned to El Salvador. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008) (the sum of the evidence did not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that the petitioner would be persecuted upon return). Thus, Canas-Umanzor's withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Canas-Umanzor failed to establish it is more likely than not he will 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.