United States v. 2020-05-11 | 17-73016 | WILFIDO CALDERON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILFIDO EDUARDO CALDERON,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-73016

Agency No. A205-321-290

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Wilfido Eduardo Calderon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

*
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).
FILED

MAY 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-73016
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Calderon does not challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. 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 Calderon’s CAT claim.
As to withholding of removal, Calderon does not challenge the agency’s
finding that he failed to establish past persecution. See id. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Calderon failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution in Guatemala. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable). Thus, Calderon’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.