Juan Jose Izquierdo-Alegria v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE IZQUIERDO-ALEGRIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72774
Agency No. A077-348-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Izquierdo-Alegria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72774
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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
As to asylum, Izquierdo-Alegria does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his application for asylum was untimely filed and he failed to
establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimeliness.
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).
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
dispositive determination that Izquierdo-Alegria failed to establish the harm he
experienced or fears 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”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the particular social group raised for the first
time in Izquierdo-Alegria’s opening brief because he did not exhaust it before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72774
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Izquierdo-Alegria failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --