EDVIN ECHEVERRIA-LOPEZ, AKA Edvin Echejerria-Lopez, AKA Edvin Candido… v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDVIN ECHEVERRIA-LOPEZ, AKA
Edvin Echejerria-Lopez, AKA Edvin
Candido Echeverria-Lopez, AKA Ricardo
Merina,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73260
Agency No. A205-529-696
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Edvin Echeverria-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
FILED
JUL 28 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 3 --

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 624 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA and IJ noted that Echeverria-Lopez stipulated that his asylum claim
was time-barred, and Echeverria-Lopez has not challenged this dispositive finding.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which
are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus,
we deny the petition as to Echeverria-Lopez’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Echeverria-
Lopez did not establish that he suffered past persecution in Guatemala, and that he
failed to establish it is more probable than not that he would be persecuted if
returned to Guatemala. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182, 1185 (9th
Cir. 2003) (record did not compel finding of past persecution; to qualify for
withholding of removal, petitioner must show that it is more probable than not that
he would suffer future persecution). Thus, Echeverria-Lopez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
13-73260 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Echeverria-Lopez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala.
See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Echeverria-Lopez’s request for
prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order). As noted by the BIA, Echeverria-Lopez did not apply for
cancellation of removal. Thus, we also lack jurisdiction to consider Echeverria-
Lopez’s contentions regarding eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-73260 3

-- 3 of 3 --