Bladimiro Vasquez-Barajas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLADIMIRO VASQUEZ-BARAJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70027
Agency No. A089-853-348
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Bladimiro Vasquez-Barajas, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
MAR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

(“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.
The BIA found that even if Vasquez-Barajas’s asylum application was
timely, he failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal
because, inter alia, he did not establish the government of Mexico is unwilling or
unable to control the individuals he fears. Vasquez-Barajas does not challenge this
dispositive finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Vasquez-Barajas’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Vasquez-
Barajas’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-70027

-- 2 of 2 --