Court Opinion

ID: 9398265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:01:11.813037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.916061
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 30 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE AUGUSTO MEJIA,                             No. 21-184
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A095-010-506
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Augusto Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for

cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

      *
            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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the

petition for review.

      Because Mejia does not challenge the agency’s denial of his application

for cancellation of removal, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,

706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      The record does not compel the conclusion that Mejia established

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum

application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en

banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions

related to the one-year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed

and extraordinary circumstances); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1103-04

(9th Cir. 2022) (applicant’s ignorance of the legal requirements did not

constitute an extraordinary circumstance). Thus, Mejia’s asylum claim fails.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of

removal because Mejia failed to show a clear probability of future persecution.

See, e.g., Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of

future persecution was not objectively reasonable); Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th

1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The ongoing safety of family members in the

petitioner’s native country undermines a reasonable fear of future

persecution.”). Thus, Mejia’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      We do not address Mejia’s contentions as to the cognizability of his

                                         2                                       21-184
proposed particular social group because the BIA did not deny relief on that

ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied

upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate

issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                    21-184