Hector Roblero-Roblero v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR ROBLERO-ROBLERO, No. 19-72693
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-659-663
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Hector Roblero-Roblero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of
*
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).
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
In his opening brief, Roblero-Roblero does not challenge the agency’s denial
of asylum and withholding of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not
specifically raised and argued in his opening brief).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Roblero-Roblero failed to show 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Roblero-Roblero did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
The petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we
retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at
930.
We reject as unsupported by the record Roblero-Roblero’s contentions that
2 19-72693
the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-72693