NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON ANTONIO SAENZ MARTINEZ, 

AKA Ramon Antonio Saenz-Martinez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71075 

Agency No. A075-433-362 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 14, 2020**

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,*** District 

Judge.

Ramon Antonio Saenz Martinez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 

* 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 James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 27 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 

1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo claims of due process violations in 

immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the single beating 

Saenz Martinez suffered in 1988 at the hands of Sandinista supporters, which did 

not require medical treatment, and the five or six sporadic, unfulfilled threats he

experienced between 1988 and 2004 did not rise to the level of past persecution. 

See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Saenz 

Martinez failed to show it was more likely than not he would be persecuted in 

Nicaragua on account of his political opinion. Saenz Martinez presented no 

evidence that he was an anti-Sandinista activist and denied being affiliated with 

any political party in Nicaragua. There was similarly no evidence that the 

Sandinistas have a pattern of persecuting those who resist Sandinista recruitment 

but are not activists. Saenz Martinez also failed to prove individualized risk where 

he only experienced one beating twenty-nine years earlier followed by sporadic, 

unfulfilled verbal threats; his ex-wife, three children, and two siblings currently 
3 

reside safely and unharmed in Nicaragua; and his brother, who holds similar antiSandinista views and was verbally threatened once in 2000, remains living in 

Nicaragua and has not been attacked or harmed for opposition views. See Sinha v. 

Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009).

The BIA did not err in declining to consider Saenz Martinez’s disfavored

group of “those that oppose the Sandinistas,” which he articulated for the first time 

on appeal before the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 

2019) (per curiam) (holding that the BIA may refuse to entertain arguments raised 

for the first time on appeal); see also Matter of W-Y-C & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 

189, 191 (BIA 2018) (“Where, as here, an applicant delineates a social group for 

the first time on appeal, the Immigration Judge will not have had an opportunity to 

make relevant factual findings, which we cannot do in the first instance on 

appeal.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Saenz Martinez’s

CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is was more likely than not, he will 

be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government in Nicaragua. See

Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018).

Finally, we reject Saenz Martinez’s contention that the IJ violated his due 

process rights by excluding an untimely filed exhibit because Saenz Martinez 

failed to establish prejudice. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 
4 

2000).

Saenz Martinez’s motion to stay removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as 

moot. The temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.