Juan Sacche v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN JOSE SACCHE, No. 16-71545 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-805-609 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Juan Jose Sacche, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Sacche does not raise and therefore waives any challenge to the BIA’s determination that his asylum application was untimely. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Sacche’s asylum claim. Sacche also does not raise and therefore waives any challenge to the BIA’s determination that the harm he suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Sacche failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution because he did not demonstrate that he could not reasonably relocate within Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3); Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Sacche’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sacche 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 16-71545 We lack jurisdiction to consider Sacche’s contentions regarding political opinion, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and other discretionary relief because these issues were not presented to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-71545 16-71545 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Juan Sacche v. Merrick Garland 19 July 2022 Agency Unpublished 78b8fa3b601637c86fa56e15378b75f6de7c8daa

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals