NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAYRA G. SOSA-GARCIA, AKA Mayra 

Guadalupe Sosa-Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71084 

Agency No. A202-096-128 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Mayra G. Sosa-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

* 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 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-71084 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm 

Sosa-Garcia experienced in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See 

Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (persecution is an 

extreme concept); see also Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th 

Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that harm rose to the level of 

persecution).

In her opening brief, Sosa-Garcia did not raise, and therefore waives, any 

challenge to the agency’s determination that she failed to establish the harm she 

fears in Mexico would be on account of an actual political opinion. See LopezVasquez 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 Sosa-Garcia

failed to establish the harm she fears in Mexico would be on account of an imputed 

political opinion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(applicant must show “an affirmative or imputed political opinion” to succeed on a 

political opinion claim).

Sosa-Garcia also did not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the 
3 16-71084 

agency’s determination that she failed to establish a cognizable particular social 

group. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

Thus, Sosa-Garcia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Sosa-Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (petitioner did not establish the necessary 

“state action” for CAT relief).

We reject as unsupported by the record Sosa-Garcia’s contentions that the 

agency applied an incorrect standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of her 

claims.

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

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.