KEIMI REYES-MONZON V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73077 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 25 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEIMI UDIEL REYES-MONZON, AKA Keima Udiel Reyes-Monzon, No. 12-73077 Agency No. A095-790-712 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Keimi Udiel Reyes-Monzon, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Reyes-Monzon does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his asylum application as untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Reyes-Monzon’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Monzon failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground from a powerful individual in his hometown. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[P]urely personal retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”) (citation omitted); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We reject Reyes-Monzon’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard or discounted his asserted membership in a particular social group. We lack jurisdiction to consider ReyesMonzon’s claimed fear of gangs in Guatemala because he did not exhaust this 2 12-73077 issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Reyes-Monzon’s withholding of removal claim fails. See MolinaMorales, 237 F.3d at 1052. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of ReyesMonzon’s CAT claim because he did not show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the government of Guatemala or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 12-73077
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
