Opinion
No. 15-72732
11-13-2020
JOSELITA MAZARIEGOS REYES, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A205-914-319 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Joselita Mazariegos Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
Mazariegos Reyes does not challenge the agency's determination that she failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Mazariegos Reyes' CAT claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Mazariegos Reyes failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she experienced or fears in Guatemala and a protected ground. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that "mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim"); Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that "persecution was or will be on account of [her] membership in such group"). Thus, Mazariegos Reyes' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
The record does not support Mazariegos Reyes' contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention).
As stated in the court's November 24, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.