Court Opinion

ID: 9908721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 18:00:53.827833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:29.081599
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY ALEXANDER MAZARIEGOS-                   No. 21-1327
RODRIGUEZ,                                      Agency No.
                                                A206-634-524
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted December 7, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Jeffrey Alexander Mazariegos-Rodriguez petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

      *
             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).
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “Where, as here, the

BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.”

Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny

the petition.

      1. Timeliness is a threshold requirement for asylum eligibility. Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)).

The agency determined that Mazariegos-Rodriguez’s asylum application, which

was filed more than three years after he last entered the United States, was

untimely and that no exceptions to the filing deadline were met. Mazariegos-

Rodriguez does not challenge this dispositive finding and, thus, has waived review

of it before this court. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th

Cir. 2013) (stating that when a petitioner fails to contest an issue in his brief, it is

deemed waived). Because the untimeliness finding is dispositive as to

Mazariegos-Rodriguez’s claim for asylum, we do not resolve Mazariegos-

Rodriguez’s challenges to the agency’s alternative grounds for denying asylum,

including the finding that Mazariegos-Rodriguez’s asylum application was

frivolous. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing INS

                                           2                                     21-1327
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are

not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the

results they reach.”)).

      2. The agency alternatively concluded that, even if Mazariegos-Rodriguez

had filed a timely, non-frivolous asylum application and were considered credible,

he was not entitled to asylum or statutory withholding of removal because he failed

to demonstrate past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or the

requisite nexus to a protected ground. Again, Mazariegos-Rodriguez does not

challenge these dispositive findings. Therefore, he has waived review of these

issues. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538.

      Because these unchallenged findings are dispositive of Mazariegos-

Rodriguez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal, we need not consider

his challenges to the adverse credibility determination or to the determination that

his proposed particular social group was not cognizable. See id.

      3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection. The record,

including an unchallenged determination that Mazariegos-Rodriguez did not suffer

past persecution, does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that

Mazariegos-Rodriguez would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the

government if returned to Honduras. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217

(9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that, for purposes of CAT relief, the concept of torture

                                         3                                  21-1327
is more severe than persecution) (citation omitted)); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “generalized evidence

of violence and crime in Mexico [that] is not particular to [p]etitioners” did not

satisfy the petitioners’ burden).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         4                                   21-1327