Filed: Dec. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIAN SALVADOR VAZQUEZ- No. 20-70322
SALGADO, AKA Cristian Vazquez,
Agency No. A214-123-614
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Christian Salvador Vazquez-Salgado, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Vazquez-Salgado failed to show it is more likely than not he 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).
We do not consider the merits of Vazquez-Salgado’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not reach them, see Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the
grounds relied on by the BIA), and Vazquez-Salgado does not contend the BIA
erred in finding that he withdrew those claims or abused its discretion in declining
to remand in order to pursue them, 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 Vazquez-Salgado’s contentions that the IJ
ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims, see Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented below), and we reject as unsupported by the record Vazquez-
2
Salgado’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its
analysis of his claims.
We do not consider the materials Vazquez-Salgado references in his opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 14) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3
