NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN JOSE IZQUIERDO-ALEGRIA, No. 15-72774 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-348-520 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2022** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Juan Jose Izquierdo-Alegria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. As to asylum, Izquierdo-Alegria does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his application for asylum was untimely filed and he failed to establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimeliness. 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). As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s dispositive determination that Izquierdo-Alegria failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We lack jurisdiction to review the particular social group raised for the first time in Izquierdo-Alegria’s opening brief because he did not exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 15-72774 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Izquierdo-Alegria failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 15-72774 15-72774 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Juan Izquierdo-Alegria v. Merrick Garland 22 February 2022 Agency Unpublished ccedfb1d067c5938e52a84d2c69126077413ffc5
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals