United States v. 2020-02-07 | 16-73190 | HECTOR RAMOS LOPEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ADRIAN RAMOS LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-73190

Agency No. A094-476-339

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Hector Adrian Ramos Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

*
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

FEB 7 2020

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

2
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Ramos Lopez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application was untimely. 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 his
asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramos Lopez
failed to establish the Salvadoran government was or would be unable or unwilling
to control the gangs. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2005) (record did not compel finding petitioner faced persecution by forces the
government was unable or unwilling to control). We reject Ramos Lopez’s
contentions that the agency erred in its analysis of his claim. Thus, Ramos Lopez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
We do not address Ramos Lopez’s contentions as to harm rising to the level
of persecution and cognizability of his particular social group because the BIA did
not reach those issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Ramos Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that
petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.