NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSIEL GRAJALES

- VELASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 179 Agency No. A213

- 082

- 606

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 27, 2023 ** Pasadena , California
Before: N.R. SMITH , LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

. Osiel Grajales

- Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ s (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for cancellation of removal
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) . W e
d ismiss in part and deny in part

.

* 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

JUN 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 179

1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Grajales

- Velasquez is ineligible for cancellation of removal

. Although Grajales

Velasquez frames his argument in d ue process terms , suggesting that the agency’s weighing of the relevant evidence violated his due process rights, his argument boils down to a challenge to the merits of the agency ’s determination that his
removal would not cause his U.S.

- citizen children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship

. T his court lacks jurisdiction to review th at factual determination, see Patel v. Garland , 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1627 (2022)

— even when a challenge to th at determination is “recast” as a due process argument, see Vilch iz

Soto v. Holder , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
2. The BIA did not err in its determination that Grajales

- Velasquez is ineligible for withholding of removal because there is no nexus between the persecution he fears and a protected ground. See Garc ia v. Wilkinson , 988 F.3d
1136 , 1142 n.2 (9th Cir. 20 21 ). Grajales

- Velasquez did not provide any evidence to support th e conclusion th at cartel members harmed him or his relatives because of their family relationship. Moreover, any errors in the IJ’s analysis of Grajales

Velasquez’s withholding claim are harmless , given the BIA’s de novo review of
th at claim. See Avendano

- Hernandez v. Lynch , 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). And even if the BIA incorrectly applied the “one central reason” asylum
standard for evaluating nexus rather than the “a reason” withholding standard, see Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 35 8 (9th Cir. 2017), this error is
harmless because the BIA properly determined that there was no nexu s at all3 22

- 179

between the harm Grajales

- Velasquez fears and his family membership , s ee Singh

v. Barr , 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019). 1
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

1 Grajales

- Velasquez forfeited any asylum or Convention Against Torture claim s by failing to raise them in his opening brief. See Perez

- Camacho v. Garland , 54 F.4th 597, 602 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022).