Court Opinion

ID: 9378799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 17:01:24.247358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.521744
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILDER BENEDICTO BARRIOS                        No.    18-73128
JUAREZ,
                                                Agency No. A206-632-616
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 13, 2023**
                               San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Wilder Benedicto Barrios Juarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) summarily affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying

      *
             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).
his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review

the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey,

551 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition.

      1. Construed liberally, Barrios Juarez’s pro se brief does not challenge the

IJ’s dispositive determination that his proposed particular social groups are

not defined with sufficient particularity and are not socially distinct. Lopez-

Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that

issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Even if this issue is not waived, Barrios Juarez has not presented sufficient

evidence to compel a finding that Guatemalan society perceives the proposed

social groups as distinct. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1180–

82 (9th Cir. 2021). Because Barrios Juarez’s failure to establish a cognizable

social group is dispositive as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims, we

need not address any other component of the IJ’s reasoning. See Nguyen v. Barr,

983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020).

      2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because

Barrios Juarez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

                                          2
Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3