NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 denyin g her
application s for voluntary departure, asylum, withh olding 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 APPEALS2 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, 11 84

- 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 den ial

of her voluntary departure and her asylum claims

. See Martin ez
- 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 s he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecuti on. 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

Substantia l evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Jimenez

Guerrero failed to show it is more likely than not s he 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 (9 th C ir. 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 (“Issu es 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

.