Ilder Arriaza-Pacheco v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ILDER ARRIAZA-PACHECO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72814
Agency No. A205-321-201
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ilder Arriaza-Pacheco, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
AUG 03 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 3 --

(“CAT”). 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). We deny the petition for review.
Arriaza-Pacheco does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum claim
as time barred. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arriaza-
Pacheco did not establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the
REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for
an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a
protected ground). We reject Arriaza-Pacheco’s contention that the BIA erred in
focusing its nexus analysis on the motivation of the purported persecutors. See INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992) (“since the statute makes motive
critical, he must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial”) (emphasis
in original). We also reject Arriaza-Pacheco’s due process contention. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
13-72814 2

-- 2 of 3 --

process claim). Thus, we deny Arriaza-Pacheco’s petition as to his withholding of
removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Arriaza-Pacheco failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we
deny the petition as to Arriaza-Pacheco’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72814 3

-- 3 of 3 --