N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ELEAZAR PER EZ, AKA Pe re z Aquino,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 18-70595 18-72781 Age n c y No. A208-836-681
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 11, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N, IKUTA, a

nd B RESS, C irc uit Judge s. Ele a z ar Pe re z , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, se e ks re vie w of a de c ision of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm i ng the de c ision of a n Im m igration Judge (IJ) to de ny Pe re z ’ s a pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd 

# FIL ED MAR 15 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). Pe re z a l so se e ks re vie wof the

de c ision of theB IA to de ny Pe re z ’ s m otion to re ope n a nd te rm inate proc e e dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), and we de ny both pe titions for
re vie w. The la c k of a

date an d tim e for a he aring on Pe re z ’ s notic e to a ppe ar did not de prive the im

m igration c o urt of jurisdic tion, be c a use Pe re z did not c onte st tha t he late r re c e ive d a

notic e of he aring a

nd Pe re z atte nde d his initia l a nd subse que nt im m igration he arings. Se e K a r ingithi v

. W

hitak e r , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th C ir. 2019). Pe re z ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t K isor v . W ilk ie , 139 S. C t. 2400 (2019), supe rse de d K aringithi is m ispla c e d, be c a

u se we are bound by

subse que nt de c isions tha t
c ontinue to a

pply K a ringithi
. Se e Unite d State s v . Bastide -He rnande

z , 986 F.3d 1245, 1247–48 (9th C ir. 2021); Aguilar Fe rmin v . Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 893–95 (9th C ir. 2020); se e also Silv a v . Barr , 965 F.3d 724, 735 (9th C ir. 2020). Two indepe nde nt sta

t utory ba rs re n de r Pe re z ine ligible for a sy lum . First, Pe re z ’ s 2017 a sy lum

a pplic a tion is untim

e ly , be c a u se Pe re zfa ile d to file it within
one y e a r of his 1992 a

rriva l in theUnite d State s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ). Pe re z ’ s una

ware ne ss of a sy lum

re lie f, le tte rs from

form e r ne ighbors in M e xic o,
and re c e nt c onta c t from

his fa the r do not m a te ria lly

a ffe c t Pe re z ’ s e ligibility

for
a sy lum or e xc use his de la y in filing a

tim e l y a pplic at ion, a

nd the re fore Pe re zfa ile d
2to de m onstra te the e xiste nc e of c ha

nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s tha t would
a llow thea ge nc y

to c onside r his untime ly

a sy l um a pplic a tion. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(a )(2)(D); 8 C
. F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4)(i); Al Ramahi v . Holde r , 725 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th C ir. 2013). Se c ond, Pe re z wa ive d a

ny c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Pe re z ’ s
c onvic tion unde r Se c tion 245(a)(4) of the C a l ifornia Pe na l C ode c onstitute d

a pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e tha

t re nde re d Pe re z ine ligiblefor a sy lum unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), be c a

use Pe re z fa ile d to ra ise the argum e nt in his opening brie f. Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th C ir. 2011). Eve n if Pe re z ha d ra ise d the a rgum e nt on a

ppe a l, we la c k jurisdic tion to disturb the de te rm ination of theIJ, be c a use Pe re z did not c ha l le nge the IJ’ s de t e rm i nation be fore the B IA. Se e Arsdi
v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 925, 928–30 (9th C i r. 2011). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the de nia l of Pe re z ’ s a

pplic a tion for withholding of rem o v a l. 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b); Sanjaa
v . Se ssions , 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th C ir. 2017). Pe re z fa ile d to show tha t the M e x ic an gove rnm e nt wa s una b le or unwilling to prote c t him from his fa the r or the thre a ts to his fa

m ily m a de by a c arte l tha t kidna pe d his unc le
. Se e BringasRodrigue z v . Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1062–69 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ). Pe re z ’ s fa the r’ s atte m

pte d soc ia l -m e dia

c onta c t with Pe re z doe s not support a like l ihood of
3future pe rse c ut ion, be c a use Pe re z is no longer a c hild, Pe re z ’ s fathe r’ s whe re a bouts
re m a in unknown, a

nd Pe re z ’ s fathe r’ s c om

m unic a tion wa s not thre a te ning. Fina lly , Pe re z fa ile d to de m onstra te a we ll-founde d fe ar of future c arte l viole nc e ; the unspe c ific , va gue le tte rs from form e r ne ighbors in M e xic o do not c onstitute
c om pe lling e vide nc e of a

like lihood of future

pe rse c ution, a

nd his fe ar of ge ne ra liz e d viole nc e an d

strife is not suffic ie ntly

pa rtic ula r to Pe re z to wa

rrant withholding of rem o v a l. Se e Lolong v . Gonzale s , 484 F.3d 1173, 1179–80 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba

nc ). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the de nia l of C A T re lie f. 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.16(c )(2)–(4); Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014). B e c a

use the M e xic an gove rnm e nt “ doe s not a c quie sc e in the torture of its
c itiz e ns m e re ly

be c a u se it is a ware of torture but powe rle s s to stop it,” Garc iaMilian , 755 F.3d a

t 1034 (quoting M

ouaw a d v . Gonzale

s , 485 F.3d 405, 413 (8th C ir. 2007)), the re c ord e vide nc e doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is more like ly tha n not tha t Pe re z would be torture d upon his re t urn to M e xic o. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2)–(4). PE T IT IO NS DE N IE D .

4