NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CONCEPCION JIMENEZ 

GUERRERO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-73152 

Agency No. A200-155-465 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Maria Concepcion Jimenez Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her

applications for voluntary departure, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

* 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

DEC 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-73152 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. 

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for 

review.

In her opening brief, Jimenez Guerrero does not raise, and therefore waives, 

any challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that she waived challenge to the IJ’s denial 

of her voluntary departure and her asylum claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 

94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in 

a party’s opening brief are waived).

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Jimenez Guerrero failed 

to establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Li v. 

Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Our caselaw 

characterizes persecution as an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of 

suffering or harm . . . in a way regarded as offensive.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Jimenez 

Guerrero failed to establish that it would be unreasonable for her to relocate within 

Mexico to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3); see also

Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding petitioner 

failed to meet her burden of establishing it would be unreasonable for her to 

relocate). Thus, Jimenez Guerrero’s withholding of removal claim fails.
3 20-73152 

Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Jimenez 

Guerrero failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the 

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Jimenez Guerrero’s assertion in her opening brief that the BIA’s decision 

resulted in constitutional error and a violation of due process is not supported by 

argument and is thus abandoned. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259 (“Issues 

raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.