Prem Chand Deo v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PREM CHAND DEO,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70257
Agency No. A046-375-161
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Prem Chand Deo, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his
application 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
FEB 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70257
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Deo does not raise any challenge to the agency’s
determination that he is removable, or to the agency’s dispositive determinations
that he is ineligible for asylum due to his aggravated felony convictions under
California Penal Code §§ 273.5(a) and 245(a)(1) and that he is ineligible for
withholding of removal because the aggregate term of those convictions was
imprisonment of at least five years. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Deo’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Deo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Fiji. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --