NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILTON EDGARDO ORELLANA- No. 16-70280
GUERRA,
Agency No. A095-750-444
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Milton Edgardo Orellana-Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se 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 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. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Orellana-Guerra does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish any
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimeliness. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Orellana-Guerra also
fails to challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. Id. Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Orellana-Guerra’s asylum and CAT claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Orellana-
Guerra failed to establish past persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d
1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who alleges past persecution has the
burden of proving that the treatment rises to the level of persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Orellana-Guerra failed to
demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Guatemala and a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must
provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in
original)); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an
2
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”). Thus,
Orellana-Guerra’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the proposed social group that Orellana-
Guerra raises for the first time in his opening brief because he failed to raise it to
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
The record does not support Orellana-Guerra’s contention that the BIA
failed to adequately explain its reasoning for dismissing his appeal. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention).
Orellana-Guerra’s request to remand in light of Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d
777 (9th Cir. 2003) is denied.
To the extent that Orellana-Guerra requests in his opening brief a stay of
removal, the request is denied as unnecessary. As indicated in this court’s August
24, 2016 order, Orellana-Guerra has a stay of removal in effect. The stay of
removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3