WALTER CASTELLANOS-MENDOZA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70121 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER CASTELLANOS-MENDOZA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70121 Agency No. A205-321-000 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Walter Castellanos-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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). We deny the petition for review. While Castellanos-Mendoza contends returning to Guatemala would cause him hardship, he failed to challenge the agency’s dispositive conclusion that he failed to establish continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The record does not compel the conclusion that Castellanos-Mendoza established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Castellanos-Mendoza’s asylum claim fails. In his opening brief, Castellanos-Mendoza does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 2 18-70121 We do not consider the materials Castellanos-Mendoza references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70121
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.
