Reynaldo Guevara-Lopez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REYNALDO GUEVARA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70784
Agency No. A201-107-999
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Reynaldo Guevara-Lopez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
* 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
FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70784
and the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020), and review de novo
questions of law, Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019). We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Guevara-
Lopez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or
would be 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”). The BIA did not err in determining that Guevara-Lopez
did not raise a family-based social group before the IJ, see Alanniz, 924 F.3d at
1068-69 (no error in BIA’s waiver determination), or in declining to consider
Guevara-Lopez’s arguments regarding a social group that was raised for the first
time to the BIA, see Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA
did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal).
We reject as unsupported by the record Guevara-Lopez’s contentions that the BIA
otherwise erred in its analysis of his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Thus, Guevara-Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70784
The BIA did not err in its determination that Guevara-Lopez waived his
CAT claim, see Alanniz, 924 F.3d at 1068-69 (no error in BIA’s determination that
applicant failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief) and he has not pointed
to any authority to support his contention that the BIA had an obligation to
consider the claim sua sponte. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to CAT.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guevara-Lopez’s motion to
reopen based on his brother’s recent grant of asylum. See Ayala v. Sessions, 855
F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017) (new evidence must be material in order to merit
reopening).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --