NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS CARDONA ALVAREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72754 

Agency No. A206-262-875 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Luis Cardona Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to remand 

and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

* 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 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72754 

Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying a motion to terminate. We have 

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

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 

2006). We deny the petition for review. 

In his opening brief, Cardona Alvarez does not challenge the agency’s 

dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely and he failed to 

establish an exception to the one-year deadline. 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). Thus, Cardona Alvarez’s asylum claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cardona 

Alvarez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was 

or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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 by gang members bears no nexus 

to a protected ground”); see also 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”). Thus, Cardona Alvarez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Cardona Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 
3 20-72754 

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). 

In his opening brief, Cardona Alvarez does not raise any argument 

challenging, and therefore waives, the agency’s denial of his motion to terminate

and the BIA’s determination that remand related to cancellation of removal was 

not warranted. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

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

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.