NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR FELIPE GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-72283 

Agency No. A089-245-668 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 11, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,** District 

Judge.

Oscar Felipe Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an 

immigration judge’s order of removal and denial of his application for withholding 

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the 

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-72283 

factual determinations for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de 

novo. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny 

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Gonzalez failed 

to meet his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he entered 

the United States lawfully. Gonzalez’s primary evidence regarding the time, place, 

and manner of his entry was his testimony, which was inconsistent with his own 

prior sworn asylum application in which he admitted entering in both 1989 and 

1994 without inspection. See Covarrubias-Mendoza v. Barr, 753 F. App’x 490, 

490 (9th Cir. 2019); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c).

Gonzalez also is removable as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral 

turpitude, which was neither challenged below nor raised on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); see also Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 

(9th Cir. 2013) (noting that failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in 

waiver). 

The BIA did not err in finding that Gonzalez failed to establish membership 

in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 

2016) (“The applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members 

who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and 

(3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 
3 14-72283 

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 

1095–96 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting family membership may, in some circumstances, 

constitute a social group, but concluding petitioner had not established persecution 

on account of family membership). Gonzalez also failed to offer evidence that his 

alleged persecutors attributed a political opinion to him. See Sangha v. INS, 103 

F.3d 1482, 1488–89 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that the petitioner “must show that his 

persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him”). Gonzalez’s withholding 

of removal claim therefore fails. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.