NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDY MIGUEL SOLARES

- AGUILAR,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 71255 Agency No. A206

- 772

- 402

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2022 * * Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE, ** * District Judge. Petitioner Fredy Solares

- Aguilar , a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

* 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).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

appeal of the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Tort ure (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “ We review for substantial evidence the [ agency ’ s ] factual findings. ” Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular s ocial group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA ’ s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. at. 1241

– 42. We deny the petition
for review.
1. The agency did not err in concluding that Solares

- Aguilar’s proposed particular social group of “ Guatemalan child who has been subjected to physical harm and emotional trauma by his teachers at school, and who suffered threats after notifying the governmen t” was not cognizable. T o demonstrate membership
in a cognizable particular social group, an applicant must show 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

. ’” Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))

. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the proposed social group lacks social distinction because t he re is no “evidence showing that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the particular3

characteristic to be a group

. ” See Cordoba v. Barr , 962 F.3d 479, 482 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omi tted) (internal quotation marks omitted )

. 2. Solares

- Aguilar waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of relief under
the CAT because he failed to meaningfully raise such a claim in his opening brief

. See Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) ; Singh v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, this c ourt would lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT because
Solares

- Aguilar did not challenge the IJ’s resolution of this CAT claim on appeal
to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (stating that this court may review a final
order if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right”); Barron v. Ashcrof t, 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and, thus, this court generally lacks jurisd iction over “the merits of a legal claim not presented in the administrative proceedings below”).
3. We reject Solares

- Aguilar’s contention that the BIA erred in s treamlining
his case because the BIA did not streamline his case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.