Court Opinion

ID: 5119470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-19 20:00:29.728842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.976468
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 19 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICENTE MOZ-HENRIQUEZ,                           No.   20-72147

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A209-225-206

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before:      TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Vicente Moz-Henriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se

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”).

      *
             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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction.

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de

novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

statutes and regulations. Id. We review de novo claims of due process violations

in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.

2004). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Moz-

Henriquez failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See

Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s

determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because

of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA

did not err in concluding that Moz-Henriquez did not establish membership in a

cognizable particular 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))). Thus, Moz-Henriquez’s asylum and withholding of

                                          2                                   20-72147
removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Moz-Henriquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Moz-Henriquez’s contention that the agency violated his right to a full and

fair hearing fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring

error to prevail on a due process claim).

      Moz-Henriquez does not challenge the agency’s denial of his request to

terminate based on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. –––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201

L.Ed.2d 433 (2018). See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th

Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                            3                                  20-72147