NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CELESTINO FLORES MARTINEZ, AKA No. 19-72291 Celestino Flores, AKA Celestino Laureano, Agency No. A206-407-147 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 15, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge. Celestino Flores Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019), and we deny the petition for review. Flores Martinez does not raise, and thus waives, any challenge to the agency’s determination that his asylum application is untimely. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Flores Martinez failed to show past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021) (persecution is an extreme concept); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (possibility of future harm too speculative). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Flores Martinez 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 Mexico. See Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in 2 Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-72291 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Celestino Flores Martinez v. Merrick Garland 31 August 2022 Agency Unpublished 5fe6b33a6c7f90768e0d9c49b42add67429e562d
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals