JUAN GIOVANNY MEJIA-URIZAR, AKA Luis Flores-Sifuentes v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN GIOVANNY MEJIA-URIZAR,
AKA Luis Flores-Sifuentes,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73222
Agency No. A200-884-064
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Giovanny Mejia-Urizar, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Mejia-Urizar does not challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum
claim was time barred, nor the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. 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). Thus, we deny Mejia-
Urizar’s petition as to his asylum and CAT claims.
With respect to withholding of removal, we reject Mejia-Urizar’s contention
that the BIA did not reach the question of whether the harm he suffered in
Guatemala was on account of a protected ground because it is not supported by the
record. Mejia-Urizar does not challenge the agency’s nexus finding, and does not
otherwise challenge the agency’s determination that he has failed to establish a
clear probability of future persecution in the absence of past persecution. See id.
Thus, Mejia-Urizar’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73222 2

-- 2 of 2 --