Victoriano Ixcoy-Itzep v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 16, 2019
• Docket: 19-71146
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIANO IXCOY-ITZEP, No. 19-71146

Petitioner, Agency No. A070-567-757

v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Victoriano Ixcoy-Itzep, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)

that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala and

thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s

* 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). factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We

deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Ixcoy-Itzep does not challenge the IJ’s determination

that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a

protected ground. 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).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ixcoy-Itzep failed

to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia,

828 F.3d at 836-37.

Ixcoy-Itzep’s opposed motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 5) is

denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of

the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 19-71146