NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELFINO CIRILO-GARCIA, No. 19-71017
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-920-906
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Delfino Cirilo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his request for
voluntary departure and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and his request for a continuance.
*
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).
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.
Cirilo-Garcia fails to challenge, and therefore waives, the agency’s denial of
voluntary departure and his request for a continuance. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cirilo-Garcia
failed to establish he suffered past persecution in Mexico. See Gonzalez-Medina v.
Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding “past persecution must have
occurred in the proposed country of removal”); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598
F.3d 1083, 1091-93 (9th Cir. 2010) (no past persecution where petitioner did not
suffer any harm personally and the persecution of his brother did not directly
impact petitioner in any way). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Cirilo-Garcia failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear
of future persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Cirilo-Garcia’s contentions regarding a pattern and practice
of persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus,
2 19-71017
Cirilo-Garcia’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Cirilo-Garcia failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
he failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cirilo-Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture speculative).
We reject Cirilo-Garcia’s contention that the agency failed to consider
evidence. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018)
(concluding there was no indication that the agency did not consider all of the
record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-71017