Francisco Santamaria v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, No. 16-73152
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-075-091
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Santamaria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santamaria
failed to establish he experienced harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is an
extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Santamaria did not establish a clear
probability of future persecution in Guatemala. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d
917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s evidence did not show clear probability of
future persecution). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Santamaria’s
remaining contentions regarding his withholding of removal claim. See Simeonov
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Thus, Santamaria’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
In his opening brief, Santamaria does not contest the BIA’s determination
that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim, 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), and we lack jurisdiction
2 16-73152
to consider his contentions as to the merits of his CAT claim because he failed to
raise them to the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
To the extent Santamaria contends the BIA erred in its analysis of his
claims, his contentions fail as unsupported by the record.
Santamaria’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No
35) is denied.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73152