NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 2 6 , 20 20 * *
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 subs tantial 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 APPEALS2 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 B IA’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 raise d and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Salazar

Reyes’ 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 a lso 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, t he agency did not err in finding that Salazar

- Reyes did not establish membership in a cognizable social gr oup. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d3 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) defi ned 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 Ramirez

Munoz 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 membershi p in that group because the BIA did not reach those issue s , 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, 8 95 (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

- Marti nez 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 .