NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS GUILA-GARCIA, AKA Carlos 

Guila, AKA Carlos Guila Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73206 

Agency No. A206-408-815 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

 

Carlos Guila-Garcia, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* 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

MAR 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73206 

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 social 

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 

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Guila-Garcia does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived his 

asylum claim on appeal. 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). To the extent Guila-Garcia argues the merits of his asylum claim, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 

(9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Guila-Garcia 

failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Li v. 

Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (persecution is “an 

extreme concept, marked by the infliction of suffering or harm ... in a way 

regarded as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Baghdasaryan 

v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who alleges past 

persecution has the burden of proving that the treatment rises to the level of 

persecution). The agency also did not err in concluding that Guila-Garcia did not 
3 15-73206 

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 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Guila-Garcia’s 

withholding of removal claim fails.

Guila-Garcia does not challenge, and therefore waives, the agency’s denial 

of CAT relief and the denial of a continuance. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 

1079-80.

We reject as unsupported by the record Guila-Garcia’s contentions that the 

agency violated his right to due process, ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in its 

analysis of his case. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.