Cesar Lopez-Chilel v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR LOPEZ-CHILEL,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72678
Agency No. A088-883-136
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Respondent’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings is granted.
Cesar Lopez-Chilel, 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 asylum, withholding of
FILED
MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
Lopez-Chilel does not challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum
claim was time barred, nor the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Lopez-Chilel’s asylum and CAT claims.
With respect to withholding of removal, Lopez-Chilel does not claim past
persecution. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez-
Chilel failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will face future
persecution by gang members in Guatemala. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Thus,
Lopez-Chilel’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72678 2

-- 2 of 2 --