Opinion
No. 20-70991
05-26-2021
JOSE TORRES CARRIZOZA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A090-217-446 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jose Torres Carrizoza, 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") decision denying his application for 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Torres Carrizoza does not challenge the agency's determination that his conviction for use of wire communication in drug-related transaction in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3401, 3417, 701, 702, and 801 was a particularly serious crime that rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the CAT. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Because this determination is dispositive of his withholding of removal claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2), we do not address Torres Carrizoza's remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of deferral of removal under the CAT because Torres Carrizoza 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 Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.