Adriana Lopez Rojas v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIANA LOPEZ ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70246
Agency No. A215-778-922
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Order of the Immigration Judge
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Adriana Lopez Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she
did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and is thus not
entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings.
* 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
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70246
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition
for review.
Rojas fears harm from her brother in Mexico. Substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s determination that Rojas failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of
persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of
[motive], direct or circumstantial”) (emphasis in original).
Rojas also fears harm from the individuals who smuggled her into the
United States from Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination
that Rojas failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of future persecution in
Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding
future fear not objectively reasonable under circumstances of the case).
In her opening brief, Rojas fails to challenge the IJ’s denial of her claim for
relief under the Convention Against Torture. 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, it is waived.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --