Gabier Hesmi Monge; Candelaria Lopez Morales v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABIER HESMI MONGE; CANDELARIA
LOPEZ MORALES,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73471
Agency Nos. A206-270-449
A206-270-443
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gabier Hesmi Monge and Candelaria Lopez Morales, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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).
FILED
DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-73471
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 deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Petitioners do not meaningfully challenge the agency’s determination that
they failed to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Mexico was or would
be on account of a protected ground. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3
(9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening
brief). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim
because they failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish
the necessary state action for CAT relief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding IJ error or
persecution based on political opinion because they did not exhaust them before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --