NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAMERINO ROSALES MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 133

Agency No.

A206

- 482

- 392

M EMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 7, 2023 ** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges

.

Camerino Rosales

- Mendoza, a nat ive and citizen of M e xico , petitions fo r

review of a Boa rd of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal

from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications f or

cancellation of removal , asylum , withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Agai nst Torture (CAT). W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n under 8 U.S.C

.

* This disposi tion is not ap pr opriate for publication and is not

prec edent except as provided by Ninth Cir cuit Rule 3 6

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conc ludes th i s ca se is suitable for decision without oral arg ument. See Fed. R. App. P. 3 4(a )(2). 

# FILED

JUN 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 § 1 2 5 2 a n d w e d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n

. 1

1. T h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l m a y c a n c e l a n a l i e n ’ s r e m o v a l i f

, i n t e r a l i a , i t

“ would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien ’ s

spouse, parent, or child, wh o is a citizen of the United States or an alien

lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D )

.

H o w e v e r , w e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e a g e n c y ’ s d i s c r e t i o n a ry d e n i a l o f

c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l a b s e n t a c o l o r a b l e l e g a l o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e rr o r

. I d

.

§ § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i )

, ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; M e n d e

z

- C a s t r o v

. M u k a s e y , 5 5 2 F

. 3 d 9 7 5

, 9 7 8

( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 9 )

.

I n t h i s c a s e , a n d a s t h e B I A r e c o g n i z e d

, the IJ misstated t h e r e c o r d

regarding the number of times Rosales

- Mendoza’s wi fe traveled to Mex i co.

Even t r e a t i n g Rosales

- Mendoza ’ s cla i m a s a s s e r t i n g a colorable legal error , his

challenge is ultimately without merit. T h e B I A a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e e rr o r b u t

f

o u n d i t w a s h a r m l e s s because the IJ’ s d e n i a l o f c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l did not

rest o n the fre quen cy of R o s a l e s

- M e n d o z a ’ s wife’s visits to Me xico. I n

a d d i t i o n , t h e BIA conducted i t s o w n i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d an d

c o n c l u d e d t h a t R o s a l e s

- M e n d o z a ’ s wife’s claime d h a r d s h i p d i d n o t r i s e t o t h e

r e q u i r e d l e v e l

.

1 Before t he BIA

, Rosa les

- Mendoza di d not m ean ingfull y challenge the IJ ’ s den ial of asyl um o r withholding of rem ov al

, and the BIA deemed t hose claims

waived

. R osales

- Mendoza also does not attempt to rene w those claims in his petition f or revie w . Th ose claims are therefore waived. D iego v. S e ss ions , 857 F.3d 1005, 1015 n. 4 ( 9th Cir. 201 7) ( issues not raise d in opening brief a re waived).3 F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , R o s a l e s

- M e n d o z a h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d l e g a l e r r o r i n

t h e denial o f h i s application for cancellation of removal. A n d t o t h e e x t e n t

R o s a l e s

- M e n d o z a a s k s u s t o r e w e i g h t h e f a c t s a n d r e a c h a d i f f

e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n

o n h i s w i f e ’ s an t i c i p a t e d h a r d s h i p , w e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d o s o

. P a t e l v

.

G a r l a n d

, 1 4 2 S

. C t

. 1 6 1 4

, 1 6 2 2

– 2 3 ( 2 0 2 2 )

.

2

. W e review the BIA’ s denial of CAT re lief for substantial evidence

.

Sharma v. Garland , 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Ci r. 2021). U n d e r t h i s s t a n d a r d

,

w e “must upho l d the agency det ermination unl ess the evidence compels a

con trary conc lusion.” Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.

2019). An alien seeking relief under the CAT must establish th at he “wi ll more

likely than not be tortured with the con s ent or acquiescen ce of a publi c of fic ial

if removed to h[is] native country.” Xochihua

- Jaimes v. Barr , 962 F.3d 1175,

1183 (9th Cir. 2020). “[G]eneralized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico

[that] is no t particula r t o P e t i t i o n e r [ ]

. . . is ins uffi c ient to meet this standard. ”

Delg ado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 11 48

, 1 1 5 2 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

.

Here, substantial e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s the BIA ’ s c o n c l u s i o n that, even

assuming that Rosales

- Mendoza’ s broth e r

- in

- law w as tortured and h i s friend’s

daug h ter k idnapped, Rosales

- Mendoza ha s not shown how those events c r e a t e a

particularized threat o f t o r t u r e a s to Rosales

- Mendoza

. T h i s e v i d e n c e , a n d t h e

r e c o r d a s a w h o l e , d o e s n o t c o m p e l t h e o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n

. N o r d o e s t h e

r e c o r d s u p p o r t R o s a l e s

- M e n d o z a ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e B I A fail ed t o c o n s i d e r

m a t e r i a l

, p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e

. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland , 990 F.3d 1173,4 1183 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that “the agency need not discuss each piece of

evidence submitted” (citation omitted)).

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D

. 2

2 The tempo rary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of t he mandate.

The motion for a sta y of removal (Dkt No. 4) is o therwise denied as moot.