Rojas Hernandez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-3473
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIAN ROJAS HERNANDEZ; YEIMI No. 23-3473 BELEN PATINO Agency Nos. LOPEZ; U.A.P.; O.P.L.; A.P.L., A201-071-463 A216-627-563 Petitioners, A216-627-564 A216-627-565 v. A216-627-566 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 2, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Julian Rojas Hernandez, his wife Yeimi Belen Patino Lopez, and Patino

Lopez’s children U.A.P., O.P.L., and A.P.L. (collectively “Petitioners”) are natives

* 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). and citizens of Mexico. They seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We deny the petition for review.

1. Petitioners waived review of the adverse credibility determination underlying

the agency’s denial of relief by not raising this issue in their opening brief. See

Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1023 (9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that

a petitioner must “specifically and distinctly” raise an argument to avoid forfeiture

(quoting Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2017))). Because

substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination,

Petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Bingxu Jin v.

Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 2014); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048

(9th Cir. 2010).

2. Petitioners also waived review of their claim to eligibility for relief under

CAT by failing to present any meaningful argument in their opening brief as to

why they contend they are eligible for CAT protection. See Martinez-Serrano v.

I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not

supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) and Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1 require that the appellant’s

2 23-3473 argument contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations

to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”

Petitioners’ brief here contained only a single sentence contending that they are

eligible for CAT, without explaining the reasons for that contention or applying

their citations of legal authority to the record. Because Petitioners failed to support

their contention with reasoned argument, we conclude that they waived their

argument with respect to their CAT eligibility.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-3473