NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABIGAIL ALVARADO-MENDOZA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70890 

Agency No. A209-804-275 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. 

Abigail Alvarado-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* 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

MAR 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-70890 

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 review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a 

motion to continue. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 

2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Alvarado-Mendoza 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).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm 

Alvarado-Mendoza experienced does not rise to the level of persecution. See

Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats alone rarely 

constitute persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003)

(persecution is “an extreme concept”). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that 

Alvarado-Mendoza failed to establish a nexus between the harm she fears and 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”); 

Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (petitioner did not 
3 19-70890 

establish nexus to a protected ground where the evidence indicated that the harm 

he experienced and feared was motivated by personal retribution).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the proposed particular social group of

“female cattle ranchers” raised in Alvarado-Mendoza’s opening brief. 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 reject as unsupported by the 

record Alvarado-Mendoza’s contention that she raised this proposed particular 

social group before the agency. 

Thus, Alvarado-Mendoza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

In her opening brief, Alvarado-Mendoza does not challenge the agency’s 

denial of CAT relief, voluntary departure, or administrative closure, and she also 

does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not violate her right to due 

process. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived); 

see also Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Issues 

raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”). 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarado-Mendoza’s

motion for a continuance. Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (agency did not abuse 

its discretion in denying a continuance where the record did not establish 

petitioner’s present eligibility for relief); see also Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I.&N. 
4 19-70890 

Dec. 405, 413 (A.G. 2018) (whether a noncitizen will obtain collateral relief is a 

factor IJ must consider in deciding whether to grant a continuance). We reject as 

unsupported by the record Alvarado-Mendoza’s contention that the agency failed 

to consider evidence in its analysis of her request for a continuance. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 10) is 

otherwise denied. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.