NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER CASTELLANOS-MENDOZA, No. 18-70121
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-321-000
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Walter Castellanos-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
an appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
asylum, cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
While Castellanos-Mendoza contends returning to Guatemala would cause
him hardship, he failed to challenge the agency’s dispositive conclusion that he
failed to establish continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal. 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).
The record does not compel the conclusion that Castellanos-Mendoza
established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Castellanos-Mendoza’s asylum claim fails.
In his opening brief, Castellanos-Mendoza does not challenge the agency’s
determination that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or
CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
2 18-70121
We do not consider the materials Castellanos-Mendoza references in his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-70121