Opinion
No. 18-72031
03-15-2019
GRACIELA IDANIA CASTILLO-BARRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency Nos. A208-154-956 A208-154-957 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Graciela Idania Castillo-Barrera and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency's dispositive determination that they failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in El Salvador. Petitioners also fail to challenge the agency's denial of withholding of removal. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' contention regarding their family membership claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).
We reject petitioners' contention that the agency erred in relying on new case law.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.