DOMINGA TORRES ARREOLA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-71336 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOMINGA TORRES ARREOLA; et al., Petitioners, No. 19-71336 Agency Nos. v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A206-914-129 A206-914-130 A206-914-131 MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Dominga Torres Arreola and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Mexico, 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 Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners’ past harm did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute persecution”). In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show that they could not safely relocate to another part of Mexico or that it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. 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, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding asylum and 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 their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of 2 19-71336 CAT relief. See Corro-Barragan, 718 F.3d at 1177 n.5. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-71336
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.
