NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MBENG LUTHER MBANWEI, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72057 

Agency No. A209-869-582 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and M. MURPHY,*** Circuit Judges.

Mbeng Mbanwei seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 

decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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 Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “When, like here, the 

BIA issues its own decision but adopts particular parts of the IJ’s reasoning,” Iman 

v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020), we review “the reasons explicitly 

identified by the BIA” and “the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in 

support of those reasons,” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted). We deny the petition for review.

Because his opening brief does not respond to the agency’s specific findings 

at all, Mbanwei—who is proceeding with counsel—has waived the arguments 

undergirding his challenge to those findings. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 

1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief are 

typically deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s 

opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare 

assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .” (internal citation omitted)).

The IJ found Mbanwei to be credible but determined that he had failed to 

demonstrate the requisite level of “persecution” or show that his experiences 

occurred on account of one of the statutorily protected grounds. The BIA adopted 

the IJ’s findings and dismissed Mbanwei’s appeal on the ground that he failed to 

meet the requisite level of “persecution.” See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 
3 

1153–54 (9th Cir. 2005). Mbanwei’s only “argument” with respect to the 

persecution is just a few conclusory sentences long and entirely fails to address the 

IJ’s specific findings that the police actions Mbanwei described “do not rise to the 

level of ‘extreme’ treatment necessary for a finding of persecution,” or that “the 

record does not indicate that [Mbanwei] would be singled out for persecution upon 

returning to Cameroon, or that there is a pattern of persecution practice towards those 

similarly-situated to him, i.e., politically active teachers in the northwest region of 

Cameroon.” Mbanwei’s bare assertions to the contrary are insufficient to trigger our 

consideration of the issues. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed 

abandoned.” (internal citation omitted)).

In addition, Mbanwei unambiguously waived any challenge to the denial of 

withholding or CAT protection by failing to make any argument at all with respect 

to these denials.

PETITION DENIED.