NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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