NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO FABIAN OCAMPO- No. 19-71925
CAMACHO, AKA Gerardo Fabian
Ocampo, AKA Jose Villapando, AKA Jose Agency No. A073-878-141
Luis Villapando, AKA Jose Luis
Villapando-Camacho,
MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Gerardo Fabian Ocampo-Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
*
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).
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ocampo-Camacho does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his
conviction under California Penal Code § 487.1 is a crime involving moral
turpitude that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Failure to raise
arguments in an opening brief constitutes waiver of those arguments. See
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018); Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised
and argued in an opening brief are waived).
We do not consider Ocampo-Camacho’s contentions regarding continuous
physical presence, good moral character, and hardship for cancellation of removal
because the BIA did not decide these issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,
657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the
BIA). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ocampo-Camacho’s contention that his
application for cancellation of removal was denied without a proper hearing. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust
2 19-71925
issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ocampo-Camacho
failed to establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his
untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5).
Ocampo-Camacho does not challenge, and thus waives, the agency’s
conclusion that his proposed particular social group is not cognizable, rendering
him ineligible for withholding of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-
80.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ocampo-Camacho failed to show 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); see also Zheng
v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding speculative possibility of
torture did not establish eligibility for CAT relief).
Ocampo-Camacho does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to
remand for additional testimony. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-71925