WILFIDO CALDERON V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-73016 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILFIDO EDUARDO CALDERON, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-73016 Agency No. A205-321-290 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Wilfido Eduardo Calderon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual * 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). findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Calderon does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Calderon’s CAT claim. As to withholding of removal, Calderon does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Calderon failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Guatemala. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable). Thus, Calderon’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-73016

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.