Joaquin Gaspar Santiago; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAQUIN GASPAR SANTIAGO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70104
Agency Nos. A077-246-804
A208-309-806
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Joaquin Gaspar Santiago and his son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
* 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
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70104
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733,
738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that their
asylum application is time-barred. 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, we deny the petition for review as to their asylum
claim.
Petitioners also do not challenge the agency’s determination that they failed
to establish a nexus to a protected ground. Id. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show a pattern or practice of
persecution against indigenous Mayans in Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that evidence of widespread
discrimination against particular groups did not compel the conclusion that there
was a pattern or practice of persecution). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of
removal claim fails.
While we do not condone the statements made by the IJ, petitioners’
contentions concerning IJ bias fail. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th
Cir. 2019) (“A petitioner must show that the denial of his or her right to a neutral

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70104
fact-finder potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --