GRACIELA CASTILLO-BARRERA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-72031 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GRACIELA IDANIA CASTILLOBARRERA; et al., No. 18-72031 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A208-154-956 A208-154-957 MEMORANDUM* 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. Graciela Idania Castillo-Barrera and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that they failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in El Salvador. Petitioners also fail to challenge the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. 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). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention regarding their family membership claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See DelgadoOrtiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish 2 18-72031 eligibility for CAT relief). We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency erred in relying on new case law. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 18-72031
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.
