FERDI ARANA-DIAZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-71576 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERDI ALEXIS ARANA-DIAZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-71576 Agency No. A206-721-388 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. Ferdi Alexis Arana-Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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). Arana-Diaz’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. 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). We deny the petition for review. Arana-Diaz does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s dispositive conclusion that he failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would be on account of a protected ground. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Arana-Diaz’s withholding of removal claim. We do not consider Arana-Diaz’s contentions as to harm rising to the level of persecution because the BIA did not decide that issue. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the agency). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Arana-Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief). We reject Arana-Diaz’s contention that the agency failed to consider arguments and evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2 19-71576 2010). Arana-Diaz’s opposed motion for stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-71576
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.
