NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS CASTRO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71424 

Agency No. A095-008-703 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Juan Carlos Castro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for 

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

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* 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

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-71424 

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 the legal question of whether a particular 

social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. at 1241-42. We deny 

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Castro failed 

to establish he experienced harm that rises to the level of persecution. See 

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is an 

extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as 

offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 

F.3d 1014, 1019–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating, and interrogation did 

not compel a finding of past persecution). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Castro failed 

to establish a nexus between past or future harm and a protected ground, including 

political opinion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant 

“must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 

Garcia-Milian v.Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2014) (record did not 

compel the conclusion that the petitioner was persecuted on account of a protected 

ground).
3 16-71424 

In his opening brief, Castro does not contest and thus waives the BIA’s 

determination that he waived his particular social group claim by failing to raise it 

before the IJ. 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).

Thus, Castro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

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

Castro failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Castro’s contention that the IJ violated his 

right to due process by failing to ask him to articulate his particular social group.

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks 

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). 

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

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.