NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE BARRETO-ALONSO, No. 22-469 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-297-854 v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 18, 2023** Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Jose Barreto-Alonso (Barreto-Alonso), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of withholding

of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1

* 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). 1 In his opening brief, Barreto-Alonso does not contest the agency’s denial of We review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief

for substantial evidence. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th

Cir. 2022). The agency’s findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

“Absent evidence of past persecution,” Barreto-Alonso “must establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution by showing both a subjective fear of

future persecution, as well as an objectively reasonable possibility of

persecution upon return to [Mexico].” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“However, an applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the

applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the

applicant’s country of nationality and under all the circumstances it would be

reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id. (citation, alterations, and

internal quotation marks omitted). Barreto-Alonso “had the burden of proving

that such relocation would not be possible or reasonable.” Id. (citations and

footnote reference omitted). Thus, the issue of internal relocation “is

dispositive.” Id. at n.2.

Barreto-Alonso does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s ruling that he

asylum based on the untimely filing of his asylum application. Barreto-Alonso, therefore, has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020).

2 22-469 failed to contest the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal “based on a failure to

demonstrate that he suffered from past persecution or that he could not

reasonably relocate within Mexico.” As a result, Barreto-Alonso has waived

any challenge to these dispositive findings supporting the agency’s denial of

withholding of removal. See Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 880 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2021).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Barreto-Alonso’s

assertion that CAT protection was warranted because he “has already been

beaten and threatened” is belied by the record. During his removal proceedings,

Barreto-Alonso testified that he left Mexico when he was eight years old, has

not returned to Mexico, and was never harmed or threatened when he resided in

Mexico.

Additionally, Barreto-Alonso’s argument that the Mexican government

does not protect its citizens from cartel violence, did not establish government

acquiescence as is required for CAT relief. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland,

25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022).

PETITION DENIED.

3 22-469