WILTO FENESCAT V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-71564 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 5 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILTO FENESCAT, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-71564 Agency No. A209-865-222 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Wilto Fenescat, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in * 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). part the petition for review. As to asylum and withholding of removal, Fenescat fails to challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez 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). Fenescat also fails to challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Fenescat’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fenescat’s contentions regarding firm resettlement. 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). We lack jurisdiction to consider Fenescat’s due process contentions regarding his credible fear interview notes and IJ bias because he failed to raise these claims to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Fenescat’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied as unnecessary. 2 18-71564 The government’s request to summarily deny the petition for review, as set forth in the answering brief, is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 18-71564
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.
