Opinion
17-71096
10-19-2022
VILMER JEOVANNI CORNEJO-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-687-763
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Vilmer Jeovanni Cornejo-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In Cornejo-Martinez's opening brief, he does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA's conclusion that he failed to meaningfully challenge the IJ's determination that the harm he suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. 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 BIA's determination that Cornejo-Martinez failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because he did not demonstrate that he could not reasonably relocate within El Salvador. See Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (asylum unavailable if applicant can avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's country of nationality and it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so). Thus, Cornejo-Martinez's asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Cornejo-Martinez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Cornejo-Martinez also fails to raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA's determination that he failed to demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Cornejo-Martinez's contention that the IJ violated his right to due process because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).