Court Opinion

ID: 4464709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-16 22:00:39.958271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:10.712769
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 16 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS VASQUEZ MATA, AKA Jesus                   No.    15-71539
Manuel Vasquez Mata,
                                                Agency No. A201-173-271
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

      Jesus Vasquez Mata, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and

regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

      Vasquez Mata does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s

determination that the proposed particular social group of “young males who are

being targeted by drug dealers” was not cognizable. 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).

      The BIA did not err in finding that Vasquez Mata’s proposed particular

social group of “young males between 18 and 35 who are targeted by drug dealers”

was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in

order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))).

                                          2
      To the extent that Vasquez Mata raises for the first time in his opening brief

a particular social group based, in part, on a specific geographic location, the court

lacks jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th

Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Vasquez Mata

otherwise failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an

applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,

Vasquez Mata’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Vasquez Mata does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s denial

of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3