JORGE RESENDIZ-MEJIA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-72561 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE LUIS RESENDIZ-MEJIA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-72561 Agency No. A077-228-035 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jorge Luis Resendiz-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual * 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). findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Resendiz-Mejia does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Resendiz-Mejia failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. We reject as unsupported by the record Resendiz-Mejia’s contentions that the IJ abused his discretion or violated Resendiz-Mejia’s due process rights by “disallowing” testimony during his reasonable fear hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-72561
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
