DEO v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-25No. No. 19-70257

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied.

Prem Chand Deo, a Fiji citizen, sought court review of immigration decisions that found him removable and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Deo did not challenge the finding that he was removable or argue against the agency's determination that his aggravated felony convictions under California law made him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. By failing to raise these issues in his opening brief, Deo waived his right to appeal them. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of torture convention relief because Deo failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that he would face torture from the Fiji government if returned.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether aggravated felony convictions bar asylum eligibility
Whether imprisonment term of five years or more bars withholding of removal
Whether applicant established likelihood of torture under the Convention Against Torture
Waiver of arguments not raised in opening brief

Procedural posture

Deo petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding him removable and denying relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Prem Chand Deo, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Deo does not raise any challenge to the agencys determination that he is removable, or to the agencys dispositive determinations that he is ineligible for asylum due to his aggravated felony convictions under California Penal Code §§ 273.5(a) and 245(a)(1) and that he is ineligible for withholding of removal because the aggregate term of those convictions was imprisonment of at least five years. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Deos asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Deo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Fiji. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.