Opinion
16-73406
08-25-2022
FILADELFO GONZALO OCHOA ECHEVERRIA, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. A071-589-334
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Filadelfo Gonzalo Ochoa Echeverria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 1 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 his opening brief, Ochoa Echeverria does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency's determination that he did not establish past 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 agency's determination that Ochoa Echeverria failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's "desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground"). Thus, Ochoa Echeverria's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. We reject his contention that the agency erred in its analysis.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ochoa Echeverria's political opinion claim because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection 2 because Ochoa Echeverria failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT protection).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).