Alma Delia Figueroa-Rojas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALMA DELIA FIGUEROA-ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73702
Agency No. A205-714-102
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Alma Delia Figueroa-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying her applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73702
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
In her opening brief, Figueroa-Rojas does not contest, and therefore waives,
the BIA’s determination that she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of her asylum
claim as time barred. 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 finding that although Figueroa-
Rojas established past persecution, the government rebutted Figueroa-Rojas’s
presumed clear probability of future persecution with evidence that she could
safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid harm. See Gonzalez-
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999, 1001 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (because
petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, it necessarily
follows they do not qualify for withholding of removal). Thus, Figueroa-Rojas’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Figueroa-Rojas failed to show it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73702
Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
We reject as unsupported by the record Figueroa-Rojas’s contentions that
the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of her claims.
To the extent Figueroa-Rojas asserts a new particular social group and new
fear claims, we lack jurisdiction to consider these issues. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
We do not consider the materials Figueroa-Rojas references in her opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --