MANUEL ALEJANDRO GUERRERO TOSTADO, AKA Manuel Guerrero, AKA Manuel Alejandro Guerrero v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL ALEJANDRO GUERRERO
TOSTADO, AKA Manuel Guerrero, AKA
Manuel Alejandro Guerrero,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72365
Agency No. A206-412-099
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit judges.
Manuel Alejandro Guerrero Tostado, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application
* 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 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72365
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 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.
In his opening brief, Guerrero Tostado does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application
is time-barred. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Guerrero Tostado failed
to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th
Cir. 2011) (applicant did not establish nexus to a particular social group where past
harm was motivated by reprisal); Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir.
2000) (“Purely personal retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of
political opinion.”). We reject as unsupported by the record Guerrero Tostado’s
contentions that the BIA failed to address issues or otherwise erred in analyzing
withholding of removal. Thus, Guerrero Tostado’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72365
Guerrero Tostado 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --