Fernando Romero Pineda 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FERNANDO ROMERO PINEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73338
Agency No. A070-774-487
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.
Fernando Romero Pineda, 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,
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-73338 2
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
findings of fact, and we review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the harm Pineda
experienced in Guatemala was not severe enough to warrant a grant of
humanitarian asylum. See Kumar v. INS, 204 F.3d 931, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2000). In
his opening brief, Pineda fails to challenge the BIA’s findings that even assuming
he suffered past persecution, he no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in
light of changed country conditions and that he has not otherwise established a
well-founded fear. 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Pineda’s asylum claim.
We also deny the petition for review as to Pineda’s withholding of removal
claim in light of his failure to challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that because
he failed to establish a well-founded fear, he necessarily failed to meet the more
stringent burden of proof for withholding of removal. See id.; see also Sowe v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008). In light of this conclusion, we need

-- 2 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-73338 3
not address Pineda’s challenge to the agency’s alternative denial of withholding of
removal based upon the criminal bar.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Pineda failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would face torture upon
return to Guatemala. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288-89 (denial of CAT relief
supported by substantial evidence in light of changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --