Celestino Flores Martinez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELESTINO FLORES MARTINEZ, AKA No. 19-72291
Celestino Flores, AKA Celestino Laureano,
Agency No. A206-407-147
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 15, 2022
Pasadena, California
Before: BENNETT and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District
Judge.
Celestino Flores Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019),
and we deny the petition for review.
Flores Martinez does not raise, and thus waives, any challenge to the
agency’s determination that his asylum application is untimely. See Rios v. Lynch,
807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (issues not specifically raised and argued
in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because Flores Martinez failed to show past persecution or a clear probability of
future persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021)
(persecution is an extreme concept); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2005) (possibility of future harm too speculative).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Flores Martinez 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 Mexico.
See Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of
torture too speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010) (per curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in
2
Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT]
standard.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3