NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICENTE MOZ-HENRIQUEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72147 

Agency No. A209-225-206 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Vicente Moz-Henriquez, 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 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

OCT 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72147 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. 

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (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. We review de novo claims of due process violations 

in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 

2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MozHenriquez failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See 

Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s 

determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because 

of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA 

did not err in concluding that Moz-Henriquez did not establish membership in a 

cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 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))). Thus, Moz-Henriquez’s asylum and withholding of 
3 20-72147 

removal claims fail. 

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

Moz-Henriquez failed to show it is more likely than not that 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).

Moz-Henriquez’s contention that the agency violated his right to a full and 

fair hearing fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 

error to prevail on a due process claim).

Moz-Henriquez does not challenge the agency’s denial of his request to 

terminate based on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. –––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 

L.Ed.2d 433 (2018). See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are 

waived).

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

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.