
    Johnny Mike TORRES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 14-73356, 15-70152
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed May 26, 2017
    Craig Earl Countryman, Attorney, Jared A. Smith, Attorney, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    Jennifer R. Khouri, Attorney, OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. The only evidence in the record that Torres’s 1993 kidnapping and beating was “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official” is Torres’s statement that Delmar Mugel, his main assailant, said he was a police officer. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The record thus does not “compel[ ] a contrary conclusion” to the BIA’s determination that Torres failed to establish that Mugel was a public official. Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007).

Nor does the record compel a contrary-conclusion to the BIA’s determination that Torres’s fear of future harm was too speculative. Cf. Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of future harm not speculative where petitioner presented evidence of recent persecution of her father and danger faced by political dissidents).

2. Torres waived his challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen and his motion for reconsideration by failing to raise these issues in his briefing. Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

DENIED AND DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     