UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ PEDRO AYALA-MONROY, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20-9626 (Petition for Review)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Pedro Ayala-Monroy, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appe als’ (“Board” or “BIA”) d ecision upholding the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and withholding of removal. 1 Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition for review.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Mr. Ayala-Monroy does not challenge the Board’s determin ations that (1) it could not consider arguments related to as ylum because “he did not request asylum before the Immigration Judge , and he has not argued that remand is appropriate to FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 19, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 12 I. BACKGROUND Mr. Ayala-Monroy last ente red the United States in 2002. In 2010, he and a Ukrainian citizen had a son, married, and la ter divorced. In 2018, he married a U.S. citizen, who has two children. The three aforementioned children are U.S. citizens. The government charged Mr. Ayala-Monr oy with being present in the United States without inspection, admission, or parole. He applied for cancellation of removal and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied cancellation of removal because Mr. Ay ala-Monroy had not demonstrated “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship ” to any qualifying re latives, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). And the IJ denied withho lding of removal because Mr. Ayala-Monroy had not established “membe rship in a particular social group,” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Th e IJ held that Mr. Ayala-Monroy’s proposed social group, returning parents of U.S.-citizen children, was not sufficiently particular or distin ct to be cognizable. Mr. Ayala-Monroy appealed to the Bo ard. He requested that it take administrative notice of the State Department’s 2017 Hu man Rights Report on

allow him to pursue this form of relief,” Ad min. R. Vol. 1 at 3 n.1 (citation omitted), and (2) he waived any issues regarding th e immigration judge’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture by failing to challenge that decision on appeal. We therefore need not cons ider these issues. See Addo v. Barr , 982 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.2 (10th Cir. 2020) (holding that failure to presen t an argument on an issue results in waiver). Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 23 Mexico and travel advisories regarding co nditions in Mexico. He also argued that Ninth Circuit precedent supported recogniti on of his proposed social group. The Board declined to take administ rative notice of the State Department publications, stating that it was Mr. Ayala-Monroy’s burden to support his application before the IJ. And it declined to consider the Ninth Circuit precedent because this case arose from a state within the Tenth Circu it. The Board agreed with the IJ that Mr. Ayala-Monroy had not s hown that his qualifying relatives would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or that he was a member of a cognizable particular social group. It therefore dismissed the appeal. Mr. Ayala-Monroy petitioned for review.
II. DISCUSSION Mr. Ayala-Monroy raises two issues, both asserting that the Board committed due process violations. 2 “In reviewing the Board’s d ecision, we engage in de novo review of constitutional and other legal questions.” Mena-Flores v. Holder , 776 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10t h Cir. 2015).
A

. Cancellation of Removal Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of a denial of cancellation of removal, including a

2 Mr. Ayala-Monroy concedes that this circuit’s precedent forecloses his jurisdictional argument based on Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). See Martinez-Perez v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir. 2020); Lopez-Munoz v. Barr , 941 F.3d 1013, 1017 (10th Cir. 2019). Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 34 determination that a petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Galeano-Romero v. Barr , 968 F.3d 1176, 1181 (10th Cir. 2020). Under § 1252(a)(2)(D), however, we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questi ons of law. Id. at 1182. Thus, rather than challenge the hardship determination, Mr. Ayala-Monroy asserts th at the Board, in declining to take administrative notice of the State Depart ment publications, deni ed him procedural due process—“the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.” Id. at 1185 (quotations omitted). “[A]n allegation of wholesale failure to consider evidence implicates due process.” Alzainati v. Holder , 568 F.3d 844, 851 (10th Cir. 2009) (quot ations omitted). The Board “may take administrative no tice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute,” includi ng “[t]he contents of offi cial documents outside the record” and “[f]acts that can be accurately and readily determined from official government sources and whose accuracy is not disputed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A)(2), (3). But th e Board is not required to do so. See id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A) (using th e permissive term “may”); see also Meriyu v. Barr , 950 F.3d 503, 507 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Even though the Bo ard may take administrative notice of the country reports not considered by the IJ, no regulation or court decision requires the Board to do so.”). Here, the Board did not wholly refuse to consider eviden ce. Rather, it denied a request to take notice of additional ev idence that Mr. Ayala-Monroy had not presented to the IJ. Notably, in asking the Board to take administrative notice, Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 45 Mr. Ayala-Monroy did not give any reas on why he could not have presented his evidence earlier. The Boar d declined to take notice of the new evidence because Mr. Ayala-Monroy had failed to carry his “burden of esta blishing his eligibility for cancellation of removal,” which “include s submitting evidence regarding conditions in the country to which he and his qualifying relatives will return.” Admin. R. Vol. 1 at 3. In these circumstance s, this decision was not erro r, much less a due process violation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i) (placi ng the burden on the noncitizen to prove eligibility for relief from removal); id. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) (requiring the noncitizen to “comply with the applicable requirements to submit information or documentation in support of the . . . app lication for relief or protection”); see also Robles-Garcia v. Barr , 944 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Ci r. 2019) (recognizing it is the noncitizen’s burden to establish eligib ility for cancellation of removal). Moreover, “[t]o prevail on a due process claim, an alien must establish not only error, but prejudice.” Alzainati , 568 F.3d at 851. Mr. Ayala-Monroy merely asserts that “[t]he BIA’s refusal to have considered evidence consisting of the State Department Report on Human Rights in Mexico and travel advisories . . . results in prejudicial denial of due process warranti ng remand to the BIA.” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 6. This conclusory a nd undeveloped assertion is in sufficient to preserve the argument for review. Issues “presented only in a perfunctory manner” in an opening brief are waived. Sawyers v. Norton , 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020) (bracket and quotations omitted); see also Moore v. Gibson , 195 F.3d 1152, 1180 n.17 (10th Cir. 1999) (“We do not consider unsupported a nd undeveloped issues.”). Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 56 B

. Withholding of Removal On withholding of removal, Mr. Ayal a-Monroy argues that the Board denied him due process in declining to consider Ninth Circuit precedent regarding whether his proposed social group was cognizable. Although Mr. Ayala-Monroy asserts that “[t]he BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by petitioner in their entirety,” and “due process requires a minimum degree of clarity in the treatment of properly raised argument,” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 7 (alterations omitted), th e Board did not ignore his argument. It properly held that Ninth Circuit authority was not controlling because this case arises from a state within the Tenth Circuit. See Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. Miera , 817 F.2d 650, 658 (10th Cir. 1987) (“[T ]he decisions of one circui t court of appeals are not binding upon another circuit.”); In re Fede , 20 I. & N. Dec. 35, 37 (B.I.A. 1989) (recognizing the same rule in the immigration context). The Board went on to consider whether the proposed social group was cognizable under Tenth Circuit law. Mr. Ayala-Monroy does not chal lenge that analysis, so we need not consider it. See Addo v. Barr , 982 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.2 ( 10th Cir. 2020) (holdi ng that failure to present an argument on an i ssue results in waiver). In addition, Mr. Ayala-Monroy again ha s failed to establish prejudice. He simply states that the Boar d’s decision not to consider the Ninth Circuit decisions, even for possible persuasive value, was “prejudicial warranti ng remand.” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 7. This conclusory and u ndeveloped statement fails to preserve the argument for review. See Sawyers , 962 F.3d at 1286; Moore , 195 F.3d at 1180 n.17. Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 67 III. CONCLUSION We deny the petition for review.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 7