Jose Luis Rodriguez-Merida v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-MERIDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74579
Agency No. A098-762-789
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Rodriguez-Merida, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74579 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ denied Rodriguez-Merida’s asylum application as time-barred.
Rodriguez-Merida does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez-
Merida did not establish past persecution or a clear probability of future
persecution based on the mistreatment he and other family members suffered when
Rodriguez-Merida was a child. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.
1995); see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.
2002). We reject Rodriguez-Merida’s contention that the agency erred in failing to
take into consideration Rodriguez-Merida’s age at the time the events occurred
because the agency properly considered the harm to Rodriguez-Merida’s family
and Rodriguez-Merida’s age at the time. See Hernandez-Ortiz, 496 F.3d at 1045-
46.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Merida’s contentions that he
suffered persecution as a member of a family-based social group and that he has a
derivative fear of future persecution through his daughter, because he failed to
exhaust these issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74579 3
(9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Rodriguez-Merida’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Finally, Rodriguez-Merida failed to set forth any substantive argument
regarding the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --