NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE LUIS RESENDIZ-MEJIA, No. 18-72561

Petitioner, Agency No. A077-228-035 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.

Jorge Luis Resendiz-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 Mexico 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 factual

*

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). findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Resendiz-Mejia does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Resendiz-Mejia failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37.

We reject as unsupported by the record Resendiz-Mejia’s contentions that the IJ abused his discretion or violated Resendiz-Mejia’s due process rights by “disallowing” testimony during his reasonable fear hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 18-72561