United States v. 2020-01-13 | 15-70587 | SANTOS ALVARADO-FIGUEROA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS ALVARADO-FIGUEROA, AKA
Santos Alvarado Figueroa,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70587

Agency No. A205-054-425

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Santos Alvarado-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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”).

*
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

JAN 13 2020

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

2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Alvarado-Figueroa fails to challenge the agency’s
dispositive bases for denying his asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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 denial of CAT relief because
Alvarado-Figueroa failed to show that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarado-Figueroa’s contentions as to
proposed social groups and political opinion that he raises for the first time in his
opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Alvarado-Figueroa’s
request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.