NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE REFUGIO SALAZAR-REYES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71682 

Agency No. A200-963-363 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jose Refugio Salazar-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and 

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review 

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 

* 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

NOV 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71682 

755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo 

v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that 

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and 

regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review 

de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. 

Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. 

Salazar-Reyes does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that 

his asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s 

opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to SalazarReyes’ asylum claim. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salazar-Reyes 

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

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past 

experiences, including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel 

a finding of past persecution); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 

(9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and harassment did not rise to the level of 

persecution). 

In addition, the agency did not err in finding that Salazar-Reyes did not 

establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 
3 19-71682 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

social group, “[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-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also RamirezMunoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed 

wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social 

group).

We do not consider Salazar-Reyes’ contentions concerning the cognizability 

of his family-based social group or his fear of future persecution on account of his 

membership in that group because the BIA did not reach those issues, see 

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited 

to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Salazar-Reyes does not argue that was in 

error, see Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.

Thus, Salazar-Reyes’ withholding of removal claim fails. 

Salazar-Reyes’ request to remand proceedings for lack of jurisdiction is 

foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission 

of certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional 

purposes by later hearing notice).
4 19-71682 

Finally, Salazar-Reyes’ contention that the agency violated his due process 

rights or otherwise erred in its analysis of his case fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. 

Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to prevail on a due 

process claim).

As stated in the court’s August 28, 2019 order, the temporary stay of 

removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.