NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ- No. 20-70859 ALFARO, Agency No. A095-790-176 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Walter Enrique Rodriguez-Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Rodriguez-Alfaro established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Rodriguez-Alfaro’s asylum claim fails. In his opening brief, Rodriguez-Alfaro does not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 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). In the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition for review as to Rodriguez-Alfaro’s withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Rodriguez-Alfaro’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 20-70859 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-70859 20-70859 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Walter Rodriguez-Alfaro v. Merrick Garland 17 September 2021 Agency Unpublished 6e2ac33602d50d6b8bb0d173964b00a65c59659e
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals