HERRERA GONZALES v. WILKINSON (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Gerson Obed Herrera Gonzales, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.

Herrera Gonzales does not challenge the BIA's determination that he waived his challenge to the IJ's finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he was ineligible for CAT relief. 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 determination that Herrera Gonzales did not establish past persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”); see also 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 marks and citation omitted)). Herrera Gonzales does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency's determination that he failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Guatemala. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, Herrera Gonzales’ withholding of removal claim fails.

As stated in the court's August 6, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.