NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN VARGAS-DIEGUEZ, AKA Juan No. 16-72183
Vargas,
Agency No. A200-154-430
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2022**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Vargas-Dieguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection 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”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Vargas-Dieguez does not contest, and therefore waives,
the BIA’s determination that he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of his asylum
claim as time barred. 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 Vargas-
Dieguez 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, Vargas-Dieguez’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Vargas-Dieguez failed to show it is more likely than not he 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); see also
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
2 16-72183
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-72183