NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYRA G. SOSA-GARCIA, AKA Mayra No. 16-71084
Guadalupe Sosa-Garcia,
Agency No. A202-096-128
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Mayra G. Sosa-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Sosa-Garcia experienced in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (persecution is an
extreme concept); see also Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th
Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that harm rose to the level of
persecution).
In her opening brief, Sosa-Garcia did not raise, and therefore waives, any
challenge to the agency’s determination that she failed to establish the harm she
fears in Mexico would be on account of an actual political opinion. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sosa-Garcia
failed to establish the harm she fears in Mexico would be on account of an imputed
political opinion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005)
(applicant must show “an affirmative or imputed political opinion” to succeed on a
political opinion claim).
Sosa-Garcia also did not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the
2 16-71084
agency’s determination that she failed to establish a cognizable particular social
group. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
Thus, Sosa-Garcia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sosa-Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (petitioner did not establish the necessary
“state action” for CAT relief).
We reject as unsupported by the record Sosa-Garcia’s contentions that the
agency applied an incorrect standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of her
claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-71084