United States v. 2020-11-13 | 15-72759 | ESTEBAN ARRIOJA-VAZQUEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTEBAN ARRIOJA-VAZQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72759

Agency No. A079-157-518

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Esteban Arrioja-Vazquez, 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 application for
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

*
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

NOV 13 2020

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

2 15-72759
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arrioja-
Vazquez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a
protected ground. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013)
(holding that “mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give
rise to a valid asylum claim”); 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”). In his opening brief, Arrioja-Vazquez does not challenge the BIA’s
determinations as to his political opinion claims. 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). Thus, Arrioja-Vazquez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
We do not reach Arrioja-Vazquez’s contentions as to adverse credibility or
corroboration. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
In his opening brief, Arrioja-Vazquez does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See
Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

3 15-72759
As stated in the court’s November 17, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.