Juan Haro-Arriaga v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN GABRIEL HARO-ARRIAGA, No. 17-71343
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-157-787
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Gabriel Haro-Arriaga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of
removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo constitutional claims and questions
of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
Haro-Arriaga waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he
cannot establish good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), because he was
incarcerated for more than 180 days as a result of a criminal conviction. See Corro-
Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest
issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). As the agency’s good moral character
determination is dispositive, we do not reach Haro-Arriaga’s remaining
contentions regarding his eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to reach non-dispositive issues).
Haro-Arriaga waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum as
untimely filed. See Corro-Barragan, 718 F.3d at 1177 n.5. As timeliness is
dispositive, we do not reach, and the agency was not required to reach, Haro-
Arriaga’s remaining contentions regarding his eligibility for asylum. See Simeonov,
371 F.3d at 538.
2 17-71343
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal, where Haro-Arriaga’s fear is based on general reports of crime and
violence in Mexico. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“An alien’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.”)
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection, where
Haro-Arriaga failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
or with the acquiescence of a government official in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
The record does not support Haro-Arriaga’s contentions that he was not
permitted to challenge the grounds of removability, that he was denied the
opportunity to file a brief, or that his conviction was vacated. Accordingly, Haro-
Arriaga’s due process contentions fail. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d
825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must
demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-71343