MARTHA FIGUEROA-ZAVALA, AKA Marta Zavala Luna, AKA Martha Zavala Luna v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA FIGUEROA-ZAVALA, AKA
Marta Zavala Luna, AKA Martha Zavala
Luna,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71760
Agency No. A204-149-438
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Martha Figueroa-Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for relief under 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Convention 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 her opening brief, Figueroa-Zavala does not challenge the agency’s denial
of her asylum and withholding of removal 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Figueroa-Zavala failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not
establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (“the petitioner must demonstrate that he would be
subject to a particularized threat of torture” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --