NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEBASTIAN HURTADO HERNANDEZ, No. 20-72346 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-080-879 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Sebastian Hurtado Hernandez, a native of Guatemala 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 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). 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. In his opening brief, Hurtado Hernandez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely and he failed to establish an exception to the one-year deadline. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Hurtado Hernandez’s asylum claim fails. Hurtado Hernandez also does not raise any argument challenging, and therefore waives, the agency’s dispositive determinations that his proposed social group of returnees with perceived wealth is not cognizable and that he otherwise failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. See id. Thus, Hurtado Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim also fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Hurtado Hernandez 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 Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 20-72346 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-72346 20-72346 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Sebastian Hurtado Hernandez v. Merrick Garland 14 October 2021 Agency Unpublished b2fbc400dd4b76d57b135841fa806d80d33369d5
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals