United States v. 2020-11-13 | 15-72732 | JOSELITA MAZARIEGOS REYES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSELITA MAZARIEGOS REYES,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72732

Agency No. A205-914-319

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.

Joselita Mazariegos Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications 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

NOV 13 2020

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

2 15-72732
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Mazariegos Reyes does not challenge the agency’s determination that she
failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Mazariegos Reyes’ CAT claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mazariegos
Reyes failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she experienced or fears in
Guatemala 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 [her] membership in such group”). Thus, Mazariegos Reyes’ asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
The record does not support Mazariegos Reyes’ contentions that the agency
failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claims. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention).

3 15-72732
As stated in the court’s November 24, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.