Court Opinion

ID: 4533342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-05-11 20:00:34.273497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:06.207379
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 11 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON RODRIGUEZ-ALCANTAR,                       No.    17-72650

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-362-583

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before:      BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Ramon Rodriguez-Alcantar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

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

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

      *
             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).
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. Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due

process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738

(9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      In his opening brief, Rodriguez-Alcantar does not contend that the BIA erred

in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum or

CAT relief. 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).

Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum and relief under CAT.

      The agency did not err in finding that Rodriguez-Alcantar failed to establish

membership in a cognizable 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))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816

F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans”

                                          2                                     17-72650
returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans

from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Alcantar’s political opinion and

family-based social group claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the

agency).

      Thus, Rodriguez-Alcantar’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      Finally, Rodriguez-Alcantar’s claim that the IJ violated due process fails.

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on

a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3                                       17-72650