Isaias Alvarenga-Alvarez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISAIAS ALVARENGA-ALVAREZ, AKA No. 16-71251 Jesus Hernandez-Lopez, Agency No. A073-997-041 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Isaias Alvarenga-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Patel v. Garland, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-23 (2022) (where the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but not factual findings and discretionary decisions). The petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). In his opening brief, Alvarenga-Alvarez does not raise and therefore waives any challenge to the agency’s dispositive 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 Alvarenga-Alvarez’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarenga- Alvarez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be 2 on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To establish a nexus to the political opinion ground, the [petitioner] must show (1) that [the petitioner] had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [the petitioner was] targeted on account of that opinion.”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Alvarenga-Alvarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Alvarenga-Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured …

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