Court Opinion

ID: 9962086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 17:01:01.451802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:49.233586
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 22 2024
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NEIL CORTEZ COREAS,                             No. 23-604
                                                Agency No. A206-242-060
             Petitioners,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,                                        MEMORANDUM*

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted April 12, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI, District Judge.***

      Neil Cortez-Coreas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order 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).
      ***
             The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, “the BIA affirms the IJ ‘and also adds its own reasoning, we review

the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.’”

Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019)). The BIA’s

determination of legal questions is reviewed de novo. See Perez-Portillo v. Garland,

56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022). The agency’s factual findings are reviewed for

substantial evidence. See id. Under this “highly deferential” standard, the agency’s

factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Salguero Sosa, 55 F.4th at 1217–18 (internal

citations omitted). On review, we deny his petition.

      1.     With respect to his asylum and withholding of removal claims, Mr.

Cortez-Coreas “is required to show that he has suffered persecution or has a well-

founded fear of future persecution on account of one of five protected statutory

grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular

social group.” Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016)

(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). The BIA          denied   Mr. Cortez-Coreas’s

application for asylum and withholding of removal because “he has not established

that his membership in a particular social group was or would be a reason, whether

                                        2
central or not, for harm.” The government argues that Mr. Cortez-Coreas waived his

opportunity to challenge this finding because he did not address it in his petition. We

agree. A heading in Mr. Cortez-Coreas’s petition states that he was “persecuted

based on a cognizable particular social group.” Nowhere in the text of the following

discussion does he contest the BIA’s nexus analysis or argue why he was persecuted

for being part of his proposed social group (El Salvadorans who oppose gang

violence). Rather, he focuses only on why that group is cognizable. Because this

Court “review[s] only issues [that] are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s

opening brief” and does “not manufacture arguments for an appellant,” Greenwood

v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994), Mr. Cortez-Coreas has

therefore waived any challenge to the BIA’s affirmance and forfeited his petition for

review on this count, see Riera-Riera, 841 F.3d at 1081.

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

Here, the record evidence, including Mr. Cortez-Coreas’s testimony that he does not

believe he would be tortured by the government, supports our conclusion that a

reasonable factfinder could conclude that Mr. Cortez-Coreas did not meet his burden

of showing that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured in El Salvador

with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755

F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED.

                                         3