NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO CORTEZ-PEREZ, AKA Hugo No. 16-73409 Cortes-Perez, AKA Hugo Cortez, AKA Hugo Perez-Cortez, Agency No. A088-659-507 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Hugo Cortez-Perez, 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 application 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). removal, and relief 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Cortez-Perez does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was time-barred and that he failed to establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Cortez-Perez’s asylum claim fails. Cortez-Perez also does not raise any challenge to the agency’s determination that the harm he experienced in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cortez-Perez did not establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (no clear probability of future persecution). Thus, Cortez-Perez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cortez-Perez did not establish that it is more likely than not he would 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). 2 16-73409 As stated in the court’s November 22, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-73409 16-73409 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Hugo Cortez-Perez v. Robert Wilkinson 22 February 2021 Agency Unpublished 800a7d045d5d52e8422cb13bf9c2020c292bd398
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals