Walter Enrique Rodriguez- Alfaro v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ-
ALFARO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70859
Agency No. A095-790-176
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Walter Enrique Rodriguez-Alfaro, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70859
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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Rodriguez-Alfaro
established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Rodriguez-Alfaro’s asylum
claim fails.
In his opening brief, Rodriguez-Alfaro does not challenge the agency’s
adverse credibility determination. 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). In the absence of credible testimony, we deny the
petition for review as to Rodriguez-Alfaro’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Rodriguez-Alfaro’s
CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he
does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is
more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence
of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70859
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --