NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE CENTENO OLIVARES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-73346 

Agency No. A095-773-608 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: BEA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District Judge.

 Jose Centeno Olivares (“Centeno Olivares”), a native and citizen of 

Mexico, petitions for review of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) 2020 decision 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for 

the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

affirming an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination in 

proceedings to reinstate Centeno Olivares’s 2009 removal order.

Centeno Olivares argues the government did not properly reinstate the 2009 

removal order. The government provided sufficient record evidence, through 

documents and Centeno Olivares’s testimony, that he is a citizen of Mexico, 

subject to a 2009 expedited removal order, who illegally reentered the United 

States after his removal. The government met the factual predicates for 

reinstatement of an order of removal. Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873, 878 

(9th Cir. 2013).

The government argues Centeno Olivares waived review of the IJ’s negative 

fear determination. Centeno Olivares did not make arguments or provide record 

support for his contention that he had a reasonable fear of return to Mexico and 

should not be removed. Rather, he listed rules of law without applying those rules 

to the facts of his case and did not cite to the record in this section of his opening 

brief. He has waived this argument. United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 

(9th Cir. 2010) (“Arguments made in passing and not supported by citations to the 

record or to case authority are generally deemed waived.”); Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(8)(A) (appellant’s opening brief must contain the “appellant’s contentions 

and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on 

which the appellant relies”).
3 

Even if Centeno Olivares had not waived that review, substantial record

evidence supported the IJ’s finding that he did not have a reasonable fear of

persecution or torture, so the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. 

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). An applicant is not 

eligible for asylum if he can safely relocate to another part of his home country.

INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). The IJ found Centeno Olivares could 

relocate safely within Mexico, had done so for a time in one area of the country 

after an incident in 2009, and could live and work in another area of Mexico 

without the cartel members involved in the 2009 incident knowing he was in that 

other area. 

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.” 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Centeno Olivares testified 

he believes cartels are “everywhere” in Mexico, but he did not support the

statement with any record evidence. IJ found he expressed a “generalized fear” of 

crime in Mexico, not one of persecution targeted to him on account of a protected 

ground. 

Petition DENIED.