Fernando Guzman-Hernandez v. Jefferson Sessions , 707 F. App'x 481 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO GUZMAN-HERNANDEZ, No. 15-70196
AKA Fernando Guzman Hernandez, AKA
Fernando Lester Hernandez, AKA Luis Agency No. A206-408-825
Alberto Hernandez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Guzman-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that
deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Guzman-Hernandez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that
his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish extraordinary
circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum.
The agency did not err in finding Guzman-Hernandez failed to establish a
nexus between the harm he alleged or fears in the future and a protected ground.
See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir. 2009) (without “evidence
of an actual political opinion or motive in the petitioner’s or the gang’s actions” the
petitioner’s actual or imputed political opinion claim failed), abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2013);
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed social group of former
gang members who are returning to El Salvador is not cognizable). Thus, we deny
2 15-70196
the petition as to Guzman-Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Guzman-Hernandez’s
CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Guzman-Hernandez does not make any argument challenging the BIA’s due
process determination. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259 (“Issues raised in a
brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70196