NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CANDIDO LOPEZ

- LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72630 Agency No. A205

- 315

- 157

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2020 * *
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Candido Lopez

- Lopez , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for
review of th e Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

* 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 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We review de novo questions of law

. Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We deny in part , dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. As to asylum, t he record does not compel the conclusion that Lopez

- Lopez applied within a reasonable time of any extraordinary or changed circumstance s, including his brother’s murder , as to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Husyev v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 1172,
1181

- 82 (9th Cir. 2008). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez

- Lopez’s contention that the delay in filing for asylum after his brother’s murder was due to grieving his los s. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) ( petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below )

. However, i n denying asylum , the BIA did not a ddress Lopez

- Lopez’s argument
that a rise in crime and corruption in Guatemala constitute d changed circumstance s that excused the untimely filing of his asylum application. See Sagaydak v.
Gonzales , 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”). As to withholding of removal, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Lopez

- Lopez failed to establish that the harm he fears in
Guatemala would be on account of his family

- based particular social group

. See3

Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution
was or will be on account of his membership in such group” )

. However, i n denying withholding of removal, the BIA did not address Lopez

- Lopez’s argument
that he would be persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion. See Sagaydak , 405 F.3d at 1040

. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Lopez

- Lopez’ s asylum and withholding of removal claim s and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denia l of CAT relief because Lopez

- Lopez 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
Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Lopez

- Lopez’s removal is stayed pending a dec ision by the BIA

. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.