“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. . . . [A] bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”
How later courts described this case
- “We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. . . . [A] bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID CAMACHO-GUERRERO, No. 24-5313
Agency No.
Petitioner, A095-724-076
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 2, 2026**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge ***
David Camacho-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for cancellation
*
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).
***
The Honorable Jeffrey Vincent Brown, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
the petition for review.
“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and affirms without
opinion, we review the decision of the IJ as the final agency determination.”
Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2005). “We review the
denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial
evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We
review mixed questions of law and fact, including the “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” inquiry for cancellation of removal, for substantial evidence.
Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025).
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner failed
to establish that a qualifying relative would suffer “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). While Petitioner testified credibly to
the emotional and economic impact that his departure would have on his adult
citizen daughter, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his daughter would suffer
“hardship that deviates, in the extreme, from the hardship that ordinarily occurs in
removal cases.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1007.
2. Petitioner also seeks review of the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT protection. The Government argues that Petitioner has
2 24-5313
waived these claims. We agree.
When a petition fails to “specifically and distinctly argue[] and raise[]” issues
for relief, “[Petitioner] has waived that claim.” Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d
1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Petitioner makes only conclusory
arguments as to his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, and fails to
challenge the IJ’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention
Against Torture entirely. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s
opening brief. . . . [A] bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”).
PETITION DENIED.1
1
Petitioner’s motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED as moot.
3 24-5313