NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 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 petition 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).

The 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 society in question’” (quoting 
3 20-71528 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also RamirezMunoz 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 Farias’ withholding of removal claim fails. 

Blancas Farias’ contention 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.