NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS ALVARO PERDOMOROSALES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70324 

Agency No. A206-625-931 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Douglas Alvaro Perdomo-Rosales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

* 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).

FILED

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-70324 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. 

Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. 

Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that PerdomoRosales failed to establish that the harm he experienced in El Salvador in 2014 was 

on account of the proposed particular social group of “witnesses who . . . the gangs 

think have testified against them” or that the harm he experienced during the 2012 

robbery in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of 

[motive], direct or circumstantial”). Perdomo-Rosales does not raise, and therefore 

waives, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive grounds for denying his claims 

based on his proposed social groups of “prosecutorial witnesses who testify against 

gangs” and “young El Salvadoran males who refuse to cooperate with the Gang 

18”. 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). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Perdomo-Rosales’s contentions as to the 

particular social groups he raises in the first instance in his opening brief because 
3 20-70324 

he did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the 

agency). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that PerdomoRosales could avoid future persecution by relocating within El Salvador and it 

would be reasonable for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13 (b)(2)(ii), (3)(i), 

1208.16(b)(2), (3); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019)

(“[A]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant 

could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of 

nationality ... and under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the 

applicant to do so.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Thus, Perdomo-Rosales’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Perdomo-Rosales failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. 

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The BIA did not err in declining to consider a 2016 law review article that 

was raised for the first time to the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A) (“The 

Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding cases”). Further, we 

do not consider the information from this law review article that Perdomo-Rosales 
4 20-70324 

references in his opening brief that is not a part of the administrative record 

considered by the BIA. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc). 

Perdomo-Rosales’s unopposed motion to submit the case on the briefs for 

decision without oral argument is granted. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.