NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Efren Robert Cardona

- Perez,

Petitioner,

v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 412

Agency No. A206

- 407

- 028

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2023 **

P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a

Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA , Circuit Judges

.

P e t i t i o n e r Efren Robert Cardona

- Perez , native and citizen of Guate mala

,

p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w o f a B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( “ B I A ” ) o r d e r

u p h o l d i n g a n I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e n i a l o f Cardona

- Perez ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n

f

o r a s y l u m , withholding of removal, cancellation of removal for non

- permanent

residents

, a n d Convention Against Torture (“C A T ”) r e l i e f

. We review de novo

the BIA’s determinations on questions of law and mixed questions of law and

* 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 decis i on without ora l argum ent

. See Fed. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 412 fact. Cordoba v. Holder , 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 20 13). The BIA’s

factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence

. Bringas

- Rodriguez v

.

Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) ( e n b a n c )

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t w e

h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t i s u n d e r 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. W e d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n i n p a r t

a n d d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n i n p a r t

.

I

.

T h e B I A d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g Car dona

- Perez ’ s a s y l u m a p p l i c a tion f o r

b e i n g u n t i m e l y

. A n a s y l u m a p p l i c a n t m u s t f i l e f o r a s y l u m w i t h i n o n e y e a r o f

t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s a r r i v a l i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)

. “ A late

asylum application may be entertained if the applicant shows ‘changed

circumstanc es which materially affect t h e applicant ’ s eligibility for asylum or

extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.’”

Gonzalez

- Castillo v. Garland

, 47 F.4th 971, 980 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8

U.S.C. § 115 8(a)(2)( D) )

.

S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e B I A ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t c h a n g e d

c i r c u m s t a n c e s d o n o t e x c u s e C a r d o n a

- P e r e z ’ s fifteen

- year d e l a y i n f i l i n g f o r

a s y l u m

. A l t h o u g h C a r d o n a

- P e r e z p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e o f G u a t e m a l a ’ s

c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n 2 0 1 6

, C a r d o n a

- P e r e z f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a n y e v i d e n c e o f t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n G u a t e m a l a i n 2 0 0 2

. T h e r e f o r e , t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d d i d n o t

s h o w a c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e t w e e n 2 0 0 2

, w h e n C a r d o n a

- P e r e z a r r i v e d i n

the U n i t e d S t a t e s , a n d 2 0 1 7

, w h e n C a r d o n a

- P e r e z a p p l i e d f o r a s y l u m

.3 21

- 412 I I

.

“To s ecure withholding of removal, a p e titioner must de monstr ate that his

‘life

. . . would be threatened in that country because of [his] race, religion,

nati onality, membership in a particular social gro up, or political opinion.’”

Barbosa v. Barr , 926 F.3d 10 53, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019) ( q u o t i n g 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231( b)(3)(A) )

. S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e B I A ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t

C a r d o n a

- P e r e z f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t h i s l i f e w o u l d b e t h r e a t e n e d i f h e r e t u r n e d

t o G u a t e m a l a

. C a r d o n a

- P e r e z d i d n o t s h o w p a s t p e r s e c u t i o n i n G u a t e m a l a a n d

f

a i l e d t o s h o w h o w t h e G u a t e m a l a n g a n g ’ s “ v a g u e t h r e a t s ” a m o u n t t o a “ c l e a r

p r o b a b i l i t y o f f u t u r e p e r s e c u t i o n

. ” Tamang v. Holder , 59 8 F .3d 1083

, 1 0 9 4

– 9 5

(9th C ir . 2010) ; s e e a l s o Z e t i n o v

. H o l d e r , 6 2 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 7

, 1 0 1 6 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 0 )

( “ [ D ] esire to be free from harassment by c r iminals motivated by theft or random

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground. ” )

.

I I I

.

With respect to Cardona

- Perez’s application for cancellation of removal,

the BIA deni ed Cardona

- Perez ’s ap plication on various grounds, including as a

matter of overall discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

discretionary denial of cancellation of removal absent a colorable constitutional

or legal question. Mendez

- Castro v. Mukasey , 552 F. 3d 97 5, 978 (9th Cir.

2009). Here, Cardona

- Perez raises no challenge to the BIA’s discretionary

denial of his application for cancellation of removal. See Fr iends of Yosemite

Valley v. Kempthorne , 520 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Arg uments not4 21

- 412 raise d by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). We thus lack

jurisdiction to consider Cardona

- Perez’s challenge to that aspect of the BIA’s

decision. Because this is dispositive of Cardona

- Perez’s application for

cancellation of r emoval, we need not r each the BIA’s alternative bases for its

denial of his application for cancellation of removal

.

I V

.

S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e B I A ’ s d e n i a l o f Cardona

- Perez ’ s

r e q u e s t f o r C A T r e l i e f b e c a u s e Cardona

- Per ez ’ s r e f e r e n c e t o gen e ral

government corruption and violence f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e “ a p a r t i c u l a r i z e d

t h r e a t o f t o r t u r e

. ” D h i t a l v

. M u k a s e y , 5 3 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 4 4

, 1 0 5 1 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )

( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o Almaghzar v. Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 922

– 23 (9th

Cir. 2006) ( “ A lthough the report s confirm that torture takes place in Yemen,

they do not compel the conclusi on that Almaghzar would be tortured if

returned. ” )

. I m p o r t a n t l y , the rec ord lacks any evidence showing that Cardona

Perez w o u l d likely be tortured if he returned to Guatema l a

. See Lim v. I NS , 2 24

F .3d 929

, 9 3 6 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats themselves are sometimes hollow and,

while uniformly unpleasant, often do not effect s ignificant actual suffering or

harm.”).

T h e t e m p o r a r y s t a y o f r e m o v a l r e m a i n s i n p l a c e u n t i l t h e m a n d a t e i s s u e s

.

P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D in part ; D I S M I S S E D i n p a r t

.