MEMORANDUM ***
Rosario De Jesus Balderrama-Rivero petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of a decision of an immigration judge (IJ) that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The IJ determined that Balderrama-Rivero is ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his December 1992 conviction of an offense that is categorically an aggravated felony. Balderrama-Riveros brief to the BIA did not raise the argument that the IJ erred in reaching this conclusion, but we nevertheless deem this issue to be exhausted because the BIA cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and explicitly adopted the IJs decision. See Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2008). In his opening brief on appeal, Balderrama-Rivero again does not argue that the IJs determination was in error, and therefore any such argument is waived. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). We therefore deny Balderrama-Riveros petition for review as to cancellation of removal on this ground.
The agency also determined that Balderrama-Rivero is not eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT because he failed to carry his burden of proving that “it is more likely than not” that he “would be tortured in the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). This determination is supported by substantial evidence, including that Balderrama-Rivero regularly traveled to Mexico before 2005 and acknowledged he has never been harmed or threatened in Mexico. Evidence that members of Balderrama-Riveros extended family, who were involved in drug cartels, were harmed or killed by rival cartels, is not to the contrary, given Balderrama-Riveros testimony that he has never been involved with cartels. Country conditions evidence indicating widespread crime and some human-rights abuses in Mexico, is not sufficiently particularized to compel the conclusion that Balderrama-Rivero would more likely than not be the subject of torture should he return to Mexico. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018).
1
PETITION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Balderrama-Riveros motion to submit this case on the briefs, Dkt. No. 35, is denied as moot.