DOMINGO FRANCISCO-NICOLAS, AKA Domingo Francisco v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGO FRANCISCO-NICOLAS, AKA
Domingo Francisco,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72239
Agency No. A213-079-188
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Francisco-Nicolas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
* 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
NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72239
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial
of a motion to terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Francisco-Nicolas does not challenge the agency’s
dispositive determination that his asylum application is time-barred. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (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 Francisco-
Nicolas failed to establish he experienced harm that rises to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal quotation and citation
omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Francisco-Nicolas did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at
1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Francisco-
Nicolas’s withholding of removal claim fails.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Francisco-Nicolas’s
request to terminate proceedings, where his challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72239
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”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Francisco-Nicolas’s contentions that
the agency violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --