NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE HEREDIA HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72666 

Agency No. A213-080-861 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Felipe Heredia Hernandez seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his claims for withholding of removal and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also argues that the 

Immigration Judge (IJ) lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because of 

* 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 10 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

a deficient notice to appear. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we 

deny the petition. 

We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the BIA adopted the

IJ’s decision. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). In doing so, 

we review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial 

evidence. Id. 

1. IJ Jurisdiction. Our precedent forecloses Heredia Hernandez’s 

argument that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because his notice to appear was deficient.

See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en 

banc) (“[T]he failure of [a notice to appear] to include time and date information 

does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Aguilar 

Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (same regarding failure to specify 

location of removal hearing). 

2. Withholding of Removal. A petitioner may qualify for withholding if 

the person’s “life or freedom would be threatened in [the country of removal] 

because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 

Barajas Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence 

supports the BIA’s conclusion that there is an insufficient nexus between Heredia 

Hernandez’s claimed social group—his family—and his feared persecution. Heredia 
3 

Hernandez fears that his brother’s kidnappers will retaliate against him for 

cooperating with law enforcement if he is removed to Mexico. The BIA concluded 

that this feared persecution stems not from Heredia Hernandez’s familial 

relationship with his brother but from the kidnappers’ desire for personal revenge, 

and accordingly lacks a nexus to any protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 

F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). The record does not compel us to reach a different 

conclusion.

3. CAT. “CAT protection cannot be granted unless an applicant shows a 

likelihood of torture that ‘is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent 

or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity or other person 

acting in an official capacity.’” B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 844 (9th Cir. 2022) 

(citation omitted). The IJ found that Heredia Hernandez failed to demonstrate the 

required government acquiescence. Heredia Hernandez did not challenge this 

finding to the BIA, and the BIA concluded that he waived any challenge to the 

dispositive issue of government acquiescence. Because Heredia Hernandez failed to 

exhaust this challenge, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Bare v. Barr, 975 

F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 

948 (9th Cir. 2021). Heredia Hernandez also “waived any argument as to [his] CAT 

claim by failing to ‘specifically and distinctly’ discuss the matter in [his] opening 
4 

brief,” Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020), and even if 

he had not waived it, it would fail as he “has not shown a likelihood of torture by or 

with the acquiescence of public officials.” Id.1

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

1The Government’s motion to strike Heredia Hernandez’s reply brief [D.E. 

31] is GRANTED. The brief is overlength, see 9th Cir. R. 32-1(b), and it also raises 

numerous arguments that were not presented in Heredia Hernandez’s opening brief,

see Velasquez-Gaspar, 976 F.3d at 1065. Counsel is cautioned to ensure future 

compliance with our rules.