NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTEBEN OSWALDO LOPEZ-LAZO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-1360

Agency No.

A208-688-739

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 13, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Esteben Lopez-Lazo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review 

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-1360

from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision, which denied asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As the 

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the 

petition.

1. For the asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA determined 

that Lopez-Lazo waived any challenge to the IJ’s dipositive finding that he failed 

to establish the requisite nexus between any past or feared harm in El Salvador and 

his family-based particular social group. 

The government contends that an abuse of discretion standard applies to our 

review of the BIA’s determination that Lopez-Lazo waived this issue. But the case 

the government cites, Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013), 

concerns the standard of review applicable to an IJ’s decision to deem applications 

waived for failing to adhere to deadlines imposed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31, not 

the BIA’s determination that an applicant waived an issue for failing to adequately 

raise it.

Regardless, under any standard of review, Lopez-Lazo has not shown that 

the BIA erred in determining that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s nexus finding 

because Lopez-Lazo’s brief to the BIA failed to address this issue. See Alanniz v. 

Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that the BIA properly 

concluded that the petitioner waived a challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief 
3 21-1360

because he did not raise the issue in his brief to the BIA). Moreover, before our

court, Lopez-Lazo likely waived any challenge to the BIA’s waiver determination 

because Lopez-Lazo’s only response in his opening brief is a conclusory statement

that he implicitly challenged the IJ’s nexus finding, without any citation to the 

record or supporting authority. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 

(9th Cir. 2010) (“Arguments made in passing and not supported by citations to the 

record or to case authority are generally deemed waived.”).

The remainder of Lopez-Lazo’s arguments regarding his asylum and 

withholding of removal claims are outside the scope of our review, which is 

limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 

1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). 

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection 

because Lopez-Lazo failed to show a particularized risk of future torture by or with 

the acquiescence of a public official if returned to El Salvador. See Lalayan v. 

Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth standard of review and 

stating that to receive CAT protection “the petitioner must demonstrate that he 

would be subject to a particularized threat of torture” (emphasis and citation 

omitted)); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per 

curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not 

particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”). 
4 21-1360

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.