SEGUNDO v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Alexander Segundo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to terminate and dismissing his appeal from 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 for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Segundo does not challenge the BIA's denial of his motion to terminate proceedings. 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 Segundo failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) (absent evidence of a discriminatory purpose, recruitment of indigenous petitioner was not persecution on account of a protected ground); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence ․ bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Segundo's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Segundo's contentions that the agency violated his right to due process, including that it failed to consider evidence and ignored arguments, fail.. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.