Ricardo Vincente-Lopez, a.k.a. Ricardo Vicente Lopez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO VINCENTE-LOPEZ, a.k.a.
Ricardo Vicente Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73655
Agency No. A095-788-289
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Vincente-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Vincente-Lopez has not challenged the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Vincente-Lopez’s
experiences with his neighbors in Guatemala, even considered cumulatively, did
not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
determination Vincente-Lopez failed to establish it is more likely that not his life
or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala. See id. at 1018 (possibility of
future persecution too speculative); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-
44 (9th Cir. 2008) (continued safety of family in hometown undermined future
fear). Consequently, Vicente-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
11-73655 2

-- 2 of 3 --

because Vincente-Lopez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73655 3

-- 3 of 3 --