MARTIN FERNANDEZ-LEDESMA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-73041 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTIN FERNANDEZ-LEDESMA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73041 Agency No. A201-175-088 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Martin Fernandez-Ledesma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that FernandezLedesma failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus, Fernandez-Ledesma’s withholding of removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fernandez-Ledesma’s remaining contentions regarding withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). In his opening brief Fernandez-Ledesma does not raise any arguments, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See LopezVasquez 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73041
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.
