NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR AUGUSTO MORALES; JOSUE No. 18-70748
MORALES-PEREZ,
Agency Nos. A202-129-886
Petitioners, A202-129-887
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Augusto Morales and Josue Morales-Perez, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
petitioners stated a cognizable social group, they failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of 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”);
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); 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 by
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). We lack jurisdiction to
consider petitioners’ argument regarding Augusto Morales’ “quasi-political office”
because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative
proceedings below). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
2 18-70748
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir.
2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 18-70748