Graciela Idania Castillo- Barrera; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRACIELA IDANIA CASTILLO-
BARRERA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72031
Agency Nos. A208-154-956
A208-154-957
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Graciela Idania Castillo-Barrera and her son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72031
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that they failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear
of future persecution in El Salvador. Petitioners also fail to challenge the agency’s
denial of withholding of removal. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention regarding their
family membership claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of
violence and crime was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72031
eligibility for CAT relief).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency erred in relying on new
case law.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --