VICTORIANO IXCOY-ITZEP V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-71146 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTORIANO IXCOY-ITZEP, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-71146 Agency No. A070-567-757 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. Victoriano Ixcoy-Itzep, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 Guatemala 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 * 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). factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Ixcoy-Itzep does not challenge the IJ’s determination that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of 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). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ixcoy-Itzep failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. Ixcoy-Itzep’s opposed motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-71146

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.