FRANCISCO BELTRAN-FLORES V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71828 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 4 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO BELTRAN-FLORES, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-71828 Agency No. A087-595-599 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 24, 2016** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Francisco Beltran-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We * 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). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. Although Beltran-Flores argues he has a well-founded fear of persecution, he does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he did not qualify for any exception to the one-year bar. 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 waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim. Beltran-Flores does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution, and substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he failed to establish a nexus between his feared future harm and a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for persecution); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Beltran-Flores’ withholding of removal claim. 2 13-71828 Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Beltran-Flores’ CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-71828
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.
