Jorge Torres-Mendoza v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-026-552. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999985500]. [16-1602]

Appeal: 16-1602

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1602

JORGE ALEXANDER TORRES-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 8, 2016

Decided:

December 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn
Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ilissa M. Gould, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1602

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jorge Alexander Torres-Mendoza, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,

petitions

Immigration

Appeals

immigration

judge’s

withholding

of

for

review

(Board)
(IJ)

removal,

of

order

dismissing

denial
and

an

of

his

protection

of

his

the

appeal

requests
under

the

Board
from

for

of
the

asylum,

Convention

Against Torture (CAT).
In the argument section of his brief, Torres claims that he
was

threatened

and

political opinion.

beaten

in

El

Salvador

on

account

of

his

He does not challenge the agency’s finding

that he failed to establish a cognizable particular social group
or otherwise argue that he is entitled to asylum on account of his
membership in his proposed group.

He also fails to challenge the

agency’s denial of his request for protection under the CAT.
has therefore abandoned these challenges on appeal.

He

See Fed. R.

App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain

. . .

appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of
[Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment
of that claim on appeal.”); see also Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d
561, 565 n.2 (4th Cir. 2013).

2

Appeal: 16-1602

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Turning to Torres’ claim of political persecution, Torres
incorrectly states that the Board concluded that (1) the threats
and beating he received at hands of Jose Urias and two unknown men
in El Salvador did not rise to the level of past persecution; and
(2) he failed to establish a nexus between these incidents and his
political opinions.

The Board clearly declined to review “the

level of harm and nexus issues” in regard to Torres’ claim that he
was subjected to persecution on account of his political opinion
and instead upheld the IJ’s denial of relief on the sole ground
that Torres failed to meet his burden of establishing that the
Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to protect him.
Because Torres is claiming that he fears persecution at the
hands of private actors, as opposed to the government of El
Salvador, he must establish that the government cannot or will not
control the offenders.

See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 198

(4th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n applicant alleging past persecution must
establish either that the government was responsible for the
persecution or that it was unable or unwilling to control the
persecutors.”).

“Whether a government is unable or unwilling to

control private actors is a factual question that must be resolved
based on the record in each case.”

Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784

F.3d 944, 951 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration and internal quotation
marks omitted).

3

Appeal: 16-1602

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to the agency’s finding that Torres failed to establish
that the government is unable or unwilling to control the private
actors in this case, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

See INS v.

Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
re Torres-Mendoza (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2016).

In

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

4