NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO MACIAS-SOLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-368

Agency No.

A213-212-440

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 8, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District 

Judge.

***

Ricardo Macias-Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of 

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, 

* 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 John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for

the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 14 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). “Where, as here, the BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without 

opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as if it 

were the BIA’s decision.” Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 

2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the agency’s 

factual determinations for substantial evidence, meaning that we may reverse

only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Umana-Escobar v. 

Garland, 62 F.4th 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2023). As the parties are familiar with 

the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review.

1. The IJ determined that Macias-Solis was statutorily barred from 

asylum because he did not apply until almost fifteen years after he entered the 

United States, and he failed to show that he qualified for an exception to the 

one-year deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2). 

In his opening brief, Macias-Solis does not address, and therefore has waived, 

any challenge to this aspect of the IJ’s decision. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that a petitioner waived issues 

not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief). 

2. Regarding withholding of removal, Macias-Solis alleged persecution 

primarily based on three events: (1) the 1994 murder of his cousin by unknown 

individuals; (2) the 2010 murder of his uncle, who had formerly worked for the 

district attorney’s office, by a cartel; and (3) a 2004 phone call to his mother 

from an unknown individual who threatened to kidnap Macias-Solis. Although 
3

Macias-Solis did not identify a particular social group, the IJ construed his 

claim as alleging fear of harm based on either family membership or resistance 

to cartel recruitment.

The IJ determined that Macias-Solis did not establish past harm rising to 

the level of persecution, a ruling that Macias-Solis has waived by failing to 

address in his opening brief. See id. In addition, the IJ’s determination that 

Macias-Solis failed to show harm on account of a protected ground is supported 

by substantial evidence. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th 

Cir. 2021) (holding that the petitioner failed to establish a nexus with his 

proposed particular social group of his family because “the record does not 

contain any evidence that his uncle’s membership in the Santos-Ponce family 

was . . . a reason that the gang killed him”).

3. Finally, under the CAT, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s 

determination that Macias-Solis failed to demonstrate that he will more likely 

than not be tortured if returned to Mexico. See id. at 891.

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION DENIED.