NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO CORTEZ-PEREZ, AKA Hugo No. 16-73409
Cortes-Perez, AKA Hugo Cortez, AKA
Hugo Perez-Cortez, Agency No. A088-659-507
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Cortez-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Cortez-Perez does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum application was time-barred and that he failed to
establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing.
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). Thus,
Cortez-Perez’s asylum claim fails.
Cortez-Perez also does not raise any challenge to the agency’s determination
that the harm he experienced in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See
id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cortez-Perez did
not establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Lanza v.
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (no clear probability of future
persecution). Thus, Cortez-Perez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cortez-Perez did not establish that 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).
2 16-73409
As stated in the court’s November 22, 2016 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73409