Jose Ozuna Aleman v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE OZUNA ALEMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73185
Agency No. A088-712-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ozuna Aleman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). Our
* 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
APR 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73185
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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Ozuna Aleman does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application
was time-barred and that no exception to the time limitation applied, and the
dispositive determination that he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground in
order to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. 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). To the extent Ozuna Aleman raises
a political opinion claim and a particular social group claim for the first time in his
opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because he did not
raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims not presented below).
Thus, Ozuna Aleman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ozuna Aleman failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --