NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE BLANCAS FARIAS, AKA Rodolfp Nunez

- Avilez, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 71528 Agency No. A209

- 384

- 200

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021 * *
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jorge Blancas Farias, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

* 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

DEC 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 71528

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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id . at
1241

. 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 p etition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Blancas Farias established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, Blancas Farias ’ asylum claim fails. In his opening brief, Blanca Farias does not raise and has therefore waived
any challenge to the IJ’s determination that he lacked nexus to any political opinion

. 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).
T he BIA did not err in concluding that Blancas Farias 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 socie ty in question’” (quoting3 20

- 71528

Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))) ; see also Ramirez

Munoz v. Lynch , 816 F.3d 1226, 1228

- 29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151

- 52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Blancas Faria s ’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Blancas Farias’ cont ention that the IJ failed to consider evidence fails as unsupported by the record

. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) ( BIA need not write an exegesis on every contention); Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim)

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.