NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO MULUL-TISTA, No. 19-70695 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-652-027 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Mulul-Tista, 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 an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for

* 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). substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016).

We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Mulul-Tista does not challenge the IJ’s determination that he failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Mulul-Tista 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.

We reject as unsupported by the record Mulul-Tista’s contentions that the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 19-70695