Court Opinion

ID: 9940228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 18:01:16.811241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.618702
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             FEB 13 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS NORBERTO MARISCAL                           No. 22-1713
GONZALEZ,
                                                 Agency No.
              Petitioner,                        A200-244-317

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted February 9, 2024**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

      Luis Norberto Mariscal Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his

appeal from the denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

      *
             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 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims. Before the BIA, the Petitioner

did not challenge the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for

asylum as untimely, and he does not challenge it here.

      The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial of withholding because

Petitioner’s proposed particular social group—“individuals whose culture and way

of life are viewed as American”—as not cognizable. Petitioner does not challenge

that determination and, instead, raises a new social group, family, for our

consideration. This contention was not raised before the BIA and is not exhausted.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring petitioners to exhaust all administrative

remedies).

      In denying CAT protection, the BIA explained that while there are problems

with cartels in Mexico, Petitioner did not show that it was more likely than not that

the government would torture him or acquiesce to his torture. Petitioner raises no

meaningful challenge to this conclusion either.

      Because Petitioner has not raised any substantive arguments in support of his

conclusory contention that he is entitled to relief, the petition for review must be

denied. See, e.g., Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919

(9th Cir. 2001) (we do not consider “issues which are not specifically and

distinctly argued and raised in a party’s opening brief”).

                                           2
PETITION DENIED.

                   3