Macario Cifuentes-Rodriguez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MACARIO CIFUENTES-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71722
Agency No. A073-901-352
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Macario Cifuentes-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in
Guatemala and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We
* 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 19-71722
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable
fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d
829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Cifuentes-
Rodriguez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala
on account of his family membership. See 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”); 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”).
Cifuentes-Rodriguez does not challenge the IJ’s determinations regarding his fear
of persecution on account of any other protected grounds. 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Cifuentes-
Rodriguez failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (no reasonable possibility of torture with state

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71722
action); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(generalized evidence of violence insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT).
We reject as unsupported by the record Cifuentes-Rodriguez’s contentions
that the IJ and asylum officer violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in
the analysis of his claims.
We do not consider the materials Cifuentes-Rodriguez references in his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Cifuentes-Rodriguez’s motion to
supplement the record or for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied. See
id.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 5) is
otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --