FRANCISCO ALEXANDER SEGUNDO, AKA Francisco Alexander Segundo Gaspar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ALEXANDER SEGUNDO,
AKA Francisco Alexander Segundo Gaspar,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72202
Agency No. A209-795-668
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Alexander Segundo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to terminate and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
* 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
AUG 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72202
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
In his opening brief, Segundo does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his
motion to terminate proceedings. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Segundo
failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in
Guatemala and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th
Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an
applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his
membership in such group”); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.
2000) (absent evidence of a discriminatory purpose, recruitment of indigenous
petitioner was not persecution on account of a protected ground); see also Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus
to a protected ground”). Thus, Segundo’s asylum and withholding of removal

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72202
claims fail.
Segundo’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process,
including that it failed to consider evidence and ignored arguments, fail.. See
Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the
presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --