NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARITO JIMENEZ

- RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent. No. 15

- 71648 Agency No. A088

- 738

- 963

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 30 , 202 1 * * Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Margarito Jimenez

- Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigratio n Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application s for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 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 decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 71648

cancellation of remov al. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v.
Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA ’s determination that Jimenez

- Ramirez failed to establish he suffered past pe rsecution. See Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (no past persecution where a murder and attempted murder were not part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner) ; see also Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1091

- 93 (9th Cir. 2010) (no past persecution where petitioner was not personally harm ed and the persecution his brother experienced did not directly impact petitioner). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA ’s determination that Jimenez

- Ramirez failed to establish a well

found ed fear of future persecutio n in Mexico. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well

- founded fear of persecutio n); see also Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”)

. Thus, Jimenez

- Ramirez’s asylum claim fails.
B ec ause Jimenez

- Ramirez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).3 15

- 71648

Jimenez

- Ramirez does not raise, and has therefore waive d , any chall enge to the agency’s determination that he failed to establish that he was entitled to CAT relief

. Husyev v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Jimenez

- Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Martinez

- Rosas v. Gonzales , 424 F.3d 926, 9 29

- 30 (9th Cir. 2005) ( the court ’ s jurisdiction over challenges to the agency’s disc retionary determination is limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law). We reject Jimenez

- Ramirez’s contention that the agency’s denial of his cancellation of removal claim violated his right to due process

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Larita

- Martinez v. INS , 2 20 F.3d 1092 , 1 0 95

- 96 (9th Cir. 200 0 ) (applicant failed to overcome the presumption that the BIA considered all relevant record evidence).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.