FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO VINCENTE-LOPEZ, a.k.a. No. 11-73655
Ricardo Vicente Lopez,
Agency No. A095-788-289
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Vincente-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Vincente-Lopez has not challenged the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Vincente-Lopez’s
experiences with his neighbors in Guatemala, even considered cumulatively, did
not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
determination Vincente-Lopez failed to establish it is more likely that not his life
or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala. See id. at 1018 (possibility of
future persecution too speculative); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-
44 (9th Cir. 2008) (continued safety of family in hometown undermined future
fear). Consequently, Vicente-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
2 11-73655
because Vincente-Lopez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73655