Jose Luis Cardona Alvarez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS CARDONA ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72754
Agency No. A206-262-875
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Cardona Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to remand
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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
NOV 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72754
Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying a motion to terminate. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Cardona Alvarez does not challenge the agency’s
dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely and he failed to
establish an exception to the one-year deadline. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Cardona Alvarez’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cardona
Alvarez failed to establish that 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”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in
such group”). Thus, Cardona Alvarez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cardona Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72754
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
In his opening brief, Cardona Alvarez does not raise any argument
challenging, and therefore waives, the agency’s denial of his motion to terminate
and the BIA’s determination that remand related to cancellation of removal was
not warranted. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --