FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILTON A MASS-ALVARADO, No. 13-73600
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-885-293
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Milton A Mass-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the 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, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Mass-Alvarado’s opening brief refers to eligibility for asylum, but he does
not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that his asylum application was untimely, and
that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the
delay. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues
raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the 2001 incident
did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that
Mass-Alvarado failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted
on account of his political opinion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000) (fear undermined by continued presence of applicant without further harm);
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Mass-Alvarado’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Mass-Alvarado’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
2 13-73600
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Honduras. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We
reject his contentions that the BIA did not sufficiently consider his CAT claim and
did not explain its reasons for denying it. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010).
In reaching these conclusions, we do not consider the 2013 country
conditions referenced in Mass-Alvarado’s opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73600