Francisco Beltran-Flores v. Loretta E. Lynch , 644 F. App'x 736 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO BELTRAN-FLORES, No. 13-71828
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-595-599
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Beltran-Flores, 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 application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s findings of fact. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
Although Beltran-Flores argues he has a well-founded fear of persecution,
he does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application
was untimely and that he did not qualify for any exception to the one-year bar.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Beltran-Flores does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to
establish past persecution, and substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that he failed to establish a nexus between his feared future harm and a protected
ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (under
the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central
reason” for persecution); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution
based on a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Beltran-Flores’
withholding of removal claim.
2 13-71828
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Beltran-Flores’
CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71828