Domingo Simon-Lucas; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGO SIMON-LUCAS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72474
Agency Nos. A209-899-430
A209-899-429
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.
Domingo Simon-Lucas and his son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to
terminate and their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
* 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 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72474
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de
novo questions of law. Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir.
2018). 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.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate,
where petitioners’ contentions regarding their notice to appear are foreclosed by
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date,
and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of
jurisdiction over her case”).
Petitioners do not make any argument challenging the agency’s dispositive
determination that they failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72474
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the BIA
engaged in improper fact-finding and that the agency ignored evidence or
otherwise erred in its analysis of their claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --