Court Opinion

ID: 4670276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-22 20:00:47.337997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:17.125629
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 22 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO PEREZ CASTILLO,                       No.    19-71728

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-156-356

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before:      GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

      Alejandro Perez Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying his motion

      *
             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).
to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453

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

      In his opening brief, Perez Castillo does not raise any challenge to the

agency’s determination that he did not suffer past persecution in Mexico. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez Castillo failed to establish

the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Perez Castillo’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

      In his opening brief, Perez Castillo also does not raise any challenge to the

agency’s denial of CAT relief or the denial of his motion to terminate. See Lopez-

Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

      As stated in the court’s September 9, 2019 order, the temporary stay of

removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                       19-71728