EDDY BASILLO-ARROYO, AKA Eddy Lopez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDY BASILLO-ARROYO, AKA Eddy
Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71947
Agency No. A205-716-540
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Eddy Basillo-Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1666 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Basillo-Arroyo does not challenge the IJ and BIA’s determination that his
asylum application was untimely in his opening brief. Thus, this issue is waived,
and we do not reach the merits of his asylum claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d
1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief
are deemed waived.”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Basillo-Arroyo
failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 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, Basillo-
Arroyo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Basillo-Arroyo failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief before the
BIA. Thus, this issue is unexhausted. See Baron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that courts lack jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3

-- 3 of 3 --