NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAX ROMERO-URTIJE, AKA Francisco No. 19-70832
Maximiliano Roman-Salgado, AKA
Maximiliano Romero-Francisco, Agency No. A095-804-715
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Max Romero-Urtije, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Romero-Urtije does not challenge the agency’s
determination that his asylum application was time barred. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Romero-Urtije
failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and his family
membership. 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”).
Thus, Romero-Urtije’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Romero-Urtije failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).
Romero-Urtije’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir.
2020) (omission of certain information from notice to appear can be cured for
2 19-70832
jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court’s May 24, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-70832