Cesar Aparicio Calel-Bautista v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR APARICIO CALEL-BAUTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73194
Agency No. A205-720-035
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Aparicio Calel-Bautista, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
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).
FILED
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73194
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Calel-Bautista
failed to establish a likelihood of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598
F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[Petitioner’s] perceived fear of future
persecution is not objectively reasonable.”); Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th
Cir. 2002) (petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution
where many years had passed since his departure from home country). Thus,
Calel-Bautista’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Calel-Bautista 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 Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We decline to reach Calel-Bautista’s contention, raised for the first time in
his reply brief, that the BIA failed to consider evidence. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983
F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) (petitioner waived a claim first challenged in the
reply brief).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73194
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --