Jose Augusto Elias Romero v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE AUGUSTO ELIAS ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71616
Agency No. A087-249-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2022**
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges
Jose Augusto Elias Romero, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
JUN 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71616
(“CAT”). 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.
Elias Romero does not challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum
application is time-barred, or that his withholding of removal claim fails because
he did not show that any harm was or would be on account of a protected ground.
We therefore do not reach those issues. 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 supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Elias Romero failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Peru.1 See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 Because the BIA assumed Elias Romero’s credibility on appeal, we do not
consider Elias Romero’s argument that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding.

-- 2 of 2 --