NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIA TEJEDA-PEREDA, No. 20-73252
Petitioner, Agency No. A203-610-714
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Tejeda-Pereda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Tejeda-Pereda does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
that her asylum application was time-barred and that she did not establish changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. 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, we deny the petition for
review as to Tejeda-Pereda’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tejeda-Pereda
failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang
v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was
not objectively reasonable). Thus, Tejeda-Pereda’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Tejeda-Pereda’s contentions as
to whether she has been convicted of a particularly serious crime. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to
consider the contentions because Tejeda-Pereda did not raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
2 20-73252
to review claims not presented to the agency); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931
(9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” decisions in
which the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Tejeda-Pereda failed to show it is more likely than not she 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). We reject as unsupported by
the record Tejeda-Pereda’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis of her
CAT claim.
We do not consider the materials Tejeda-Pereda references in her opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 20-73252