Daniel Pineda Galdamez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL PINEDA GALDAMEZ, No. 20-72283 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-639-952 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Daniel Pineda Galdamez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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 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. In his opening brief, Pineda Galdamez does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Pineda Galdamez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (asylum and withholding of removal claims failed in the absence of credible testimony). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Pineda Galdamez’s remaining contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where Pineda Galdamez’s claim was based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th 2 20-72283 Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-72283 20-72283 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Daniel Pineda Galdamez v. Merrick Garland 14 October 2021 Agency Unpublished d5937e644e49b64a0f59f4bb0577ee1a0bc10e2c

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals