Pablo Ricardo Casia Aguilar 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PABLO RICARDO CASIA AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70234
Agency No. A076-356-355
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Ricardo Casia Aguilar, 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 applications for
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-70234 2
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment
and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determinations, see
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we review for substantial
evidence factual findings, see id., and we review de novo due process claims, see
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition
for review.
Contrary to Casia Aguilar’s contention, the BIA considered his arguments
on appeal regarding whether he demonstrated the requisite hardship with respect to
cancellation of removal, and the BIA properly declined to reach Casia Aguilar’s
remaining arguments pertaining to cancellation of removal because the hardship
issue was dispositive. Casia Aguilar’s contention that the BIA did not weigh the
evidence cumulatively fails because the BIA stated it considered the claimed
hardships in the aggregate. Because the BIA did not err, Casia Aguilar’s due
process contention fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(showing of error required to prevail on a due process challenge).
The record does not compel the conclusion that Casia Aguilar timely filed an
asylum application, or that he established an excuse for failing to do so. See 8

-- 2 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-70234 3
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). Furthermore, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Casia Aguilar was eligible to be granted asylum as a derivative beneficiary because
he did not demonstrate his father had been granted asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Casia Aguilar’s asylum
claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Casia Aguilar
did not establish past persecution, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60, and that the
harm he fears in the future is not on account of a protected ground, see Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to Casia Aguilar’s withholding of removal claim.
Likewise, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Casia Aguilar did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he
would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
Casia Aguilar does not challenge the agency’s denial of NACARA relief in
his opening brief. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --