Rogelio Tomas-Alonzo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROGELIO TOMAS-ALONZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74808
Agency No. A98-175-280
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Tomas-Alonzo, 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 and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74808 2
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Tomas-Alonzo does not raise any substantive challenge to the BIA’s
determination that his asylum application is time-barred. Accordingly, we deny
the petition for review as to Tomas-Alonzo’s asylum claim. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not addressed in the
argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tomas-
Alonzo did not demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future harm
on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-84
(1992). Accordingly, Tomas-Alonzo’s withholding claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --