Maria Jimenez Guerrero v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA CONCEPCION JIMENEZ No. 20-73152
GUERRERO,
Agency No. A200-155-465
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Concepcion Jimenez Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
applications for voluntary departure, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
In her opening brief, Jimenez Guerrero does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that she waived challenge to the IJ’s denial
of her voluntary departure and her asylum claims. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Jimenez Guerrero failed
to establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Our caselaw
characterizes persecution as an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of
suffering or harm . . . in a way regarded as offensive.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Jimenez
Guerrero failed to establish that it would be unreasonable for her to relocate within
Mexico to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3); see also
Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding petitioner
failed to meet her burden of establishing it would be unreasonable for her to
relocate). Thus, Jimenez Guerrero’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2 20-73152
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Jimenez
Guerrero failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Jimenez Guerrero’s assertion in her opening brief that the BIA’s decision
resulted in constitutional error and a violation of due process is not supported by
argument and is thus abandoned. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259 (“Issues
raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-73152