NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 22 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS ROJAS-AMBRIZ, AKA Jesus                   No.    17-72825
Ambriz Rojas,
                                                Agency No. A098-388-328
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Jesus Rojas-Ambriz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction



      *
             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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 

, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny

the petition for review.

      In his opening brief, Rojas-Ambriz fails to challenge the agency’s

dispositive determination that he failed to establish it is more likely than not he

would be persecuted in Mexico. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

,

1079-80 (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 his

withholding of removal claim.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Rojas-Ambriz 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 Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 

, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant failed to show

particularized threat of torture).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           2