NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 immigratio n 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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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
th e 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 an d 199 4 without insp ection. 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 challe nged 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) (“ T he 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. S ee Sangha v. INS , 103 F.3d 1482, 148 8

– 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.