Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rogelio TOMAS-ALONZO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74808.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    Michael Lucien Jacob, Law Office of Michael L, Jacob, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Petitioner.
    Achiezer Guggenheim, Trial, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rogelio Tomas-Alonzo, 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 application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mulcasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Tomas-Alonzo does not raise any substantive challenge to the BIA’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Tomas-Alonzo’s asylum claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tomas-Alonzo did not demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future harm on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zaearias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, Tomas-Alonzo’s withholding claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.