Elba Aracely Vasquez-Medina; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELBA ARACELY VASQUEZ-MEDINA;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72217
Agency Nos. A206-733-808
A206-733-809
A206-733-810
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Elba Aracely Vasquez-Medina, her minor daughter, and minor niece, natives
and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications 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
JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72217
Against Torture (“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). We deny the petition for review.
The agency denied petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims
based on their failure to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Honduras
was or would be on account of a protected ground. In their opening brief,
petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that they failed to
establish nexus to a protected ground. 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian,
755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary
state action for CAT relief).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72217
general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to
the results they reach.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --