Jose Alcides Canas-Umanzor v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALCIDES CANAS-UMANZOR,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72111
Agency No. A099-580-479
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alcides Canas-Umanzor, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* 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
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72111
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Canas-Umanzor fails to challenge the agency’s
determination that his asylum application was untimely. 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, Canas-Umanzor’s asylum claim fails.
Canas-Umanzor does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to
establish past persecution. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Canas-Umanzor failed to establish that he will more likely than
not be subject to persecution if returned to El Salvador. See Fakhry v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008) (the sum of the evidence did not compel a
finding that it is more likely than not that the petitioner would be persecuted upon
return). Thus, Canas-Umanzor’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Canas-Umanzor failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --