Juan Sacche v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE SACCHE, No. 16-71545
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-805-609
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Sacche, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Sacche does not raise and therefore waives any
challenge to the BIA’s determination that his asylum application was untimely.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to Sacche’s asylum claim.
Sacche also does not raise and therefore waives any challenge to the BIA’s
determination that the harm he suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See
id. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Sacche failed to
establish a clear probability of future persecution because he did not demonstrate
that he could not reasonably relocate within Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(2)-(3); Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004).
Thus, Sacche’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sacche 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).
2 16-71545
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sacche’s contentions regarding political
opinion, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and other discretionary
relief because these issues were not presented to the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or
claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-71545