NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTIAN RANDOLFO HERRERA- No. 15-73884
BRAN,
Agency No. A088-709-275
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Cristian Randolfo Herrera-Bran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
In his opening brief, Herrera-Bran does not contend that the BIA erred in its
determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s finding that his asylum
application was untimely, and this issue is waived. 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). We do not address Herrera-Bran’s
contentions as to the merits of his asylum claim because the BIA did not deny
relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, Herrera-Bran’s asylum claim fails.
Herrera-Bran does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the
agency’s conclusion that he failed to establish a cognizable particular social group.
See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. We lack jurisdiction to consider
Herrera-Bran’s new proposed particular social group or imputed political opinion
claim because he failed to raise these issues before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
2 15-73884
claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Herrera-Bran’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Herrera-Bran failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as
unsupported by the record Herrera-Bran’s contention that the agency erred in its
analysis of his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-73884
Cristian Herrera-Bran v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion