MIGUEL ANGEL RIVERA RODRIGUEZ, AKA Miguel Rivera v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL RIVERA RODRIGUEZ,
AKA Miguel Rivera,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70189
Agency No. A205-716-512
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Rivera Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
* 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
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70189
application for asylum 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). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Rivera Rodriguez
established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, Rivera Rodriguez’s asylum
claim fails.
In his opening brief, Rivera Rodriguez does not reference withholding of
removal or otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of the claim. See Corro-
Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest
issue in opening brief resulted in waiver. Thus, we deny the petition for review as
to Rivera Rodriquez’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rivera Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
Finally, we reject as without merit Rivera Rodriguez’s contentions as to his

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70189
membership in a class action lawsuit, his eligibility for the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program, or his claim for Temporary Protected Status.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --