Juan Rodas-Joaquin; Rodas Alexander Dominguez-Dieguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN RODAS-JOAQUIN; RODAS
ALEXANDER DOMINGUEZ-DIEGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71351
Agency Nos. A209-143-170
A209-143-171
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Juan Rodas-Joaquin and Rodas Alexander Dominguez-Dieguez, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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
OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71351
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. 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 their opening brief, petitioners do not make any argument challenging the
agency’s decision to exclude the 2015 automobile accident from consideration in
its past persecution analysis. 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). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
the harm petitioners suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that persecution “is an
extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Guatemala. See Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too
speculative”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71351
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
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to “the administrative record
upon which the [removal] order is based” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --