Santiago Az-Tecum v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO AZ-TECUM,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72217
Agency No. A095-746-197
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Az-Tecum, 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
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-72217
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Az-Tecum raises no challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse its untimely filing. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to Az-Tecum’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Az-Tecum
failed to demonstrate the past harm he suffered, even cumulatively, rose to the
level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. Substantial evidence also
supports the determination that he failed to establish it is more likely than not that
he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim
fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-72217
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Az-Tecum failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --