N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALEX ELISEO SANC H EZ M ENDEZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70116 Age n c y No. A094-811-946 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ale x Elise o Sanc he z M e n de z , a nat ive and c i tiz e n

of Guate m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# FIL ED OCT 3 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide nc e the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. Sanc he z M e nde z doe s not c ha l le nge the B IA’ s finding of waive r re ga rding the t im e line ss of his a sy l um a pplic ation. Se e M

artine z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not spe c ific a lly ra ise d a nd a rgue d in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f are wa ive d). The B IA did not m ake any findings re g arding pa s t pe rse c ution. Sa nc he z M e n de z d oe s not m a

k e any argum e nts tha

t the B IA e rre d in fa i ling to do so. Se e id. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Sa nc he z M e nde z did not show tha

t the re is a

patt e rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c ution a ga inst indigen ous pe rsons in Gua

te m a la . Se e W

ak k ary , 558 F.3d a

t 1060-62 (re c ord did not c om pe l a finding of a

patte rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Sa nc he z M e nde z did not show suffic ie n t individualiz e d risk unde r a disfa vore d group a

na l y s is to e sta

blish it is m

ore like l y tha n not tha t he would be pe rse c ute d in Gua te m a la . Se e Halim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also W

a k k ary , 558 F.3d a

t 1066 (“ [a ] n a

pplic a n t for withholding of re m ova l will ne e d to a dduc e a c onside ra

bly la rge r qua ntum of individualiz e d-risk e vide nc e to pre va il tha

n would a n a sy lum a pplic ant” ). Furthe r, substa ntia l 1 3 - 7 0 1 1 6 2e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Sa n c he z M e nde z did not e sta blish a ne x us be twe e n his fe ar of ga ngs a nd his m e m

b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e P arussimova v . Muk

ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th C ir. 2009) (the REAL ID Ac t

“ re quire s tha

t a prote c te d ground re pre se nt ‘ one c e ntra l re a son’ for an a sy lum a pplic ant’ s pe rse c ution” ); Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [a ] n a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

te d by the ft or random viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c t e d ground” ). W e re je c t Sa n c he z M e nde z ’ s c onte n tion tha t the B IA im

prope rly or ina de quate ly a sse sse d his a

rgum e nts re g arding the tre atm e nt of indige nous pe ople in Gua te m a l a and the prospe c t of future pe rse c ution. S e e Lope z v . Ashc r oft , 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th C ir. 2004) (a ge nc y “ doe s not ha

v e to write an e x e ge sis on e ve ry c onte ntion” ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita t ion om itte d). Fina lly , be c a use we are re vie w ing the B IA’ s de c ision, wedo not re a c h Sanc he z M e nde z ’ s c onte ntions of IJ e rror. Thus, Sa

nc he z M e nde z ’ s withholding of re m ova l c l a im

fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 0 1 1 6 3