FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO BONNET, No. 20-73634 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-829-242 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation. Petitioner Roberto Bonnet (Bonnet), a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). 1. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Bonnet’s asylum claim because his application was time barred. Withholding of removal was denied because: (1) Bonnet failed to establish past persecution, a threat of future persecution, or a nexus between Bonnet’s accused harm and a protected ground; and (2) Bonnet’s battery conviction constituted a particularly serious crime. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decisions under Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). Thus, we review the IJ’s order as if it were the BIA’s. See Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 2. Bonnet does not challenge the determination that he failed to file a timely asylum application or that he failed to establish past persecution, fear of future persecution, or nexus between the asserted harm and a protected ground. Therefore, any arguments regarding these matters are waived. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that an asylum application must be filed within one year of arrival in the United States); see also Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that issues not argued in the petitioner’s opening brief are waived). 3. The IJ’s alternative determination of Bonnet’s ineligibility for withholding of removal due to his conviction for a particularly serious crime was not an abuse of discretion. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 884 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385 (9th Cir. 2012), as amended (reviewing for abuse of discretion). Bonnet’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence related to the “type of sentence imposed” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals