United States v. 2020-10-30 | 19-71856 | NOE ANTUNEZ-BARRERA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOE ANTUNEZ-BARRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71856

Agency No. A208-312-181

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Noe Antunez-Barrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for withholding of
removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of
removal, and his request to terminate proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by

*
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

OCT 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71856
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo
questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Antunez-Barrera does not challenge the agency’s determination that his
proposed social group of “individuals who return to Mexico after living in the
United States” was not cognizable. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Antunez-
Barrera failed to establish he would be persecuted in Mexico on account of his
family social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011)
(even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must
still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Antunez-Barrera’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Antunez-Barrera failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

3 19-71856
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet
standard for CAT relief).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
because Antunez-Barrera raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (the court’s
jurisdiction over challenges to the agency’s discretionary determination is limited
to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law).
The BIA properly denied Antunez-Barrera’s request to terminate, because
Antunez-Barrera’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is
foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission
of certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional
purposes by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court’s September 18, 2019 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.