NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 jurisdi ction 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 APPEALS2

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. Wilk inson , 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 juri sdiction 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) (emphasi s added) ; see also Barajas Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 3 60 (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. He redia3

Hernandez fears th at his brother’s kidnappers will retaliate against him for cooperati ng with law enforcement if he is removed to Mexico

. T he 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 publi c 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 acquiescenc e. Heredia Hernandez did not challenge this finding to t he 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 cons ider it

. See Bare v. Barr , 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020); see also I r aheta

- 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 th e matter in [his] opening4

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
.

1 The Government’s motion to strike Heredia Hernandez’s reply brief [D.E. 31] is GRANTED. T he brief is overlength , s ee 9 th Cir. R. 32

- 1(b) , and i t also raises num erous arguments that were not presented in Heredia Hernandez’s opening brief , s ee Velasquez

- Gaspar , 976 F.3d at 1065. Counsel is cautioned to ensure future compliance with our rules.