Juan Francisco Castaneda- Martin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN FRANCISCO CASTANEDA-
MARTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72027
Agency No. A200-567-138
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Francisco Castaneda-Martin, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying his motion to terminate proceedings and dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
* 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
SEP 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72027
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th
Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Castaneda-Martin does not raise, and therefore waives,
challenge to the BIA’s determination that he waived his challenge to the IJ’s
dispositive determinations that his asylum application was untimely and that he
was ineligible for CAT relief. 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). We lack jurisdiction to consider Castaneda-Martin’s contentions
regarding the merits his CAT claim because he did not raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to Castaneda-Martin’s asylum and CAT claims.
As to withholding of removal, in his opening brief, Castaneda-Martin does
not raise, and therefore waives, challenge to the agency’s determination that he did
not meet his burden to establish past persecution. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at
1079-80. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72027
Castaneda-Martin failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in
Guatemala and a protected ground. See 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 by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). Thus, Castaneda-Martin’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
because Castaneda-Martin raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (court’s
jurisdiction to review challenges to the agency’s discretionary determination is
limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Castaneda-Martin’s
motion to terminate proceedings where his challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction
under Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is foreclosed by
Aguilar-Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date,
and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of
jurisdiction over [his] case”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --