Hugo Bamaca-Flores 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO BAMACA-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74638
Agency No. A094-810-472
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Bamaca-Flores, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUL 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74638 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bamaca-Flores’ unexhausted contention
regarding asylum eligibility, because he expressly declined to seek asylum before
the IJ.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bamaca-Flores’
withholding of removal claim because his forced conscription, experiences in the
military, and his subsequent desertion do not establish he was or will be harmed on
account of a protected ground. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1187-88
(9th Cir. 2006) (applicant presented insufficient evidence she would be singled out
for severe disproportionate punishment for refusing to serve in the military based
on a protected ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41
(9th Cir. 2009) (Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent “one central
reason” for an applicant’s persecution). Bamaca-Flores fails to challenge the
BIA’s determination that he was not targeted on account of his membership in a
particular social group. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74638 3
Bamaca-Flores fails to challenge the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --