NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HIPOLITO LOPEZ-LOPEZ, No. 21-984
Agency No.
Petitioner, A200-567-861
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023 **
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Hipolito Lopez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without
opinion an immigration judge’s 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Lopez-Lopez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum application is time-barred, we do not address it. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, we deny
the petition for review as to Lopez-Lopez’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Lopez
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of 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, his withholding of
removal claim fails.
We do not address Lopez-Lopez’s remaining contentions as to the merits of
his asylum and withholding claims 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)).
Lopez-Lopez’s contentions regarding his political opinion or a returnee-
based particular social group are not properly before the court because he failed to
2 21-984
raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of
administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.
411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing
rule).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lopez-Lopez 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 Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider the materials Lopez-Lopez references in his opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 21-984