NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO ALEXANDER SEGUNDO, 

AKA Francisco Alexander Segundo Gaspar, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72202 

Agency No. A209-795-668 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Alexander Segundo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 

motion to terminate and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 

decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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

AUG 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-72202 

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 review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration 

proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the 

petition for review.

In his opening brief, Segundo does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his 

motion to terminate proceedings. See Lopez-Vasquez 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 Segundo

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in 

Guatemala and a protected ground. See 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”); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 

2000) (absent evidence of a discriminatory purpose, recruitment of indigenous 

petitioner was not persecution on account of a protected ground); see also 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 . . . bears no nexus 

to a protected ground”). Thus, Segundo’s asylum and withholding of removal 
3 19-72202 

claims fail.

Segundo’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process, 

including that it failed to consider evidence and ignored arguments, fail.. See 

Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to 

prevail on a due process claim); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 

2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. 

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the 

presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.