Francisco Pedro v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ANDRES PEDRO, No. 19-73304
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-670-726
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Andres Pedro, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
*
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).
substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Andres Pedro does not challenge the determination that he did not qualify as
a class member under Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV-10-02211 DMG
(DTBx), 2014 WL 5475097 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014). 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).
Andres Pedro also does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to
challenge the IJ’s determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious
crime and was therefore barred from withholding of removal. See id. Thus,
Andres Pedro’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of deferral of removal under the
CAT because Andres Pedro 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 Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner
did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
We do not consider materials included with Andres Pedro’s opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
As stated in the court’s April 24, 2020 order, the stay of removal remains in
2 19-73304
place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-73304