Beltran-Floresv.Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITMar 4, 2016
No. 13-71828 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)

No. 13-71828

03-04-2016

FRANCISCO BELTRAN-FLORES, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A087-595-599 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Francisco Beltran-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's findings of fact. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

Although Beltran-Flores argues he has a well-founded fear of persecution, he does not challenge the agency's dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he did not qualify for any exception to the one-year bar. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Beltran-Flores does not challenge the agency's finding that he failed to establish past persecution, and substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that he failed to establish a nexus between his feared future harm and a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least "one central reason" for persecution); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Beltran-Flores' withholding of removal claim.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Beltran-Flores' CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.