Miguel Angel Rodriguez- Alegria v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ-
ALEGRIA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72581
Agency No. A205-273-538
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Rodriguez-Alegria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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).
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72581
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of
law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to
the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings,
Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 353, and review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition for review.
We do not consider any materials that Rodriguez-Alegria references in his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Rodriguez-Alegria does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his
asylum application was untimely filed, and that he failed to establish any changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimeliness. 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 deemed waived). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rodriguez-
Alegria failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of his membership in
the particular social group of his family. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72581
483 (1992) (an applicant must provide some evidence of motive, direct or
circumstantial). Further, we reject Rodriguez-Alegria’s contention that he is
entitled to withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social
group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016).
Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rodriguez-
Alegria’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican
government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Rodriguez-Alegria’s
contention that the BIA’s analysis was insufficient. See Larita-Martinez v. INS,
220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where there is no
error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --