Patino v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Patino v. Gonzales

144 F. App'x 681

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 23, 2005

DocketNo. 04-74340

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. App'x 681 (Patino v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patino v. Gonzales, 144 F. App'x 681 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Maximino Patino and his wife Maria Carmen Patino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-39 (9th Cir. 1995), we deny the petition.

There was no evidence in the record that would compel the IJ to find that the Patinos had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. Id.

The Patinos did not challenge the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture in their opening brief, and therefore waived these claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuanee of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Maximino Patino and his wife Maria Carmen Patino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-39 (9th Cir. 1995), we deny the petition.

There was no evidence in the record that would compel the IJ to find that the Patinos had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. Id.

The Patinos did not challenge the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture in their opening brief, and therefore waived these claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuanee of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patino-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack