Opinion
No. 18-72217
07-19-2019
ELBA ARACELY VASQUEZ-MEDINA; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency Nos. A206-733-808 A206-733-809 A206-733-810 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Elba Aracely Vasquez-Medina, her minor daughter, and minor niece, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications 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.
The agency denied petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims based on their failure to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Honduras was or would be on account of a protected ground. In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency's dispositive finding that they failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. 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, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners' remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach." (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.