FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX ELISEO SANCHEZ MENDEZ, No. 13-70116
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-811-946
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alex Eliseo Sanchez Mendez, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
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.
Sanchez Mendez does not challenge the BIA’s finding of waiver regarding
the timeliness of his asylum application. 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).
The BIA did not make any findings regarding past persecution. Sanchez
Mendez does not make any arguments that the BIA erred in failing to do so. See
id.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sanchez Mendez did
not show that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against indigenous
persons in Guatemala. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62 (record did not compel a
finding of a pattern or practice of persecution). Substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s finding that Sanchez Mendez did not show sufficient individualized risk
under a disfavored group analysis to establish it is more likely than not that he
would be persecuted in Guatemala. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th
Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of
removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk
evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant”). Further, substantial
2 13-70116
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Sanchez Mendez did not establish
a nexus between his fear of gangs and his membership in a particular social group.
See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[a]n alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We
reject Sanchez Mendez’s contention that the BIA improperly or inadequately
assessed his arguments regarding the treatment of indigenous people in Guatemala
and the prospect of future persecution. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807
n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency “does not have to write an exegesis on every
contention”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, because we
are reviewing the BIA’s decision, we do not reach Sanchez Mendez’s contentions
of IJ error. Thus, Sanchez Mendez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70116