Pablo Guartazaca-Dutan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PABLO GUARTAZACA-DUTAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70826
Agency No. A215-882-094
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Guartazaca-Dutan, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions pro se 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,
* 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
JUL 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70826
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Guartazaca-
Dutan failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Ecuador was or
would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid
asylum claim”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guartazaca-Dutan’s contentions
as to a political opinion claim because he did not raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to consider claims not raised to the BIA). Thus, Guartazaca-Dutan’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
In his opening brief, Guartazaca-Dutan does not contest the BIA’s
determination that he waived challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim, 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), and we lack

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70826
jurisdiction to consider his contentions as to the merits of his CAT claim, see
Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --