NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ALBERTO LOPEZ ZAMUDIO, No. 15-72591
AKA Oscar Alberto Lopez,
Agency No. A088-487-847
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Alberto Lopez Zamudio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance
and his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of
law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Zamudio’s request
for a continuance where he failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez
Zamudio failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears
in Mexico and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (an 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, Lopez Zamudio’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez Zamudio 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
2 15-72591
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
To the extent Lopez Zamudio contends the BIA erred in its analysis of his
motion for a continuance or his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims,
the contention fails. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency need not write an exegesis on every contention). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Lopez Zamudio’s contention that the IJ ignored evidence or otherwise
erred in her analysis because Lopez Zamudio failed to raise these contentions
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
As to cancellation of removal, Lopez Zamudio does not raise any argument
challenging the BIA’s dispositive determination that he waived any challenge to
the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish he has a qualifying relative as required to
demonstrate eligibility for relief. 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). Thus, Lopez Zamudio’s cancellation of removal claim
fails.
In light of this disposition, Lopez Zamudio’s motion to remand for further
consideration of his cancellation of removal claim is denied. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1)(D); Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicants
3 15-72591
“who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’
of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely
change the result in the case” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473
(BIA 1992))).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
4 15-72591