NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA FIGUEROA-ZAVALA, AKA No. 19-71760 Marta Zavala Luna, AKA Martha Zavala Luna, Agency No. A204-149-438

Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Martha Figueroa-Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for relief under the

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

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for

review.

In her opening brief, Figueroa-Zavala does not challenge the agency’s denial

of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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 agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Figueroa-Zavala failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not

establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d

1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (“the petitioner must demonstrate that he would be

subject to a particularized threat of torture” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2