Case ID: f-appx_632/html/0380-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Jose GONZALEZ-ONTIVEROS, aka Jesus Jose Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70794.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner..
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Jose Gonzalez-Ontiveros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his applications for 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.

Gonzalez-Ontiveros does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s denial of CAT' relief or the BIA’s dispositive determination that he failed to establish a particular social group for an asylum or withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

We decline Gonzalez-Ontiveros’ request to extend the holding in Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.1988) to the situation in Mexico and Gonzalez-Ontiveros’ distinguishable claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.