Case Name: Bruno Leal BORRAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-01
Citations: 584 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 11-70599
Parties: Bruno Leal BORRAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 869–870

Head Matter:
Bruno Leal BORRAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70599.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
Filed Oct. 1, 2014.
Gisele Ambrosio, Law Offices of Gisele Ambrosio, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Yedidya Cohen, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director' Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bruno Leal Borras, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and ' deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Borras's asylum and CAT claims because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
The BIA found that, even if Borras demonstrated membership in a particular social group, he failed to establish his membership in the particular social group was or will be a "central reason" for the harm he suffered or fears. Borras does not raise any arguments challenging this determination in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, Borras's withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.