ABRAHAM MENDEZ PAREDES V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70030 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABRAHAM MENDEZ PAREDES, AKA Alberto Garcia Valenzuela, AKA Abraham Mendez-Pacheco, AKA Abraham MendezPacheo, AKA Ezequiel Romero Suentes, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70030 Agency No. A205-408-803 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Abraham Mendez Paredes, 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 relief under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Mendez Paredes fails to challenge the agency’s determination that he did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. 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, Mendez Paredes’s CAT claim fails. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Mendez Paredes’s contentions regarding credibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (citation omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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.