Court Opinion

ID: 9366677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:08.887578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.208830
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO ANTONIO RAMIREZ MACIAS,                    No.   16-73923

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A077-975-869

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Marco Antonio Ramirez Macias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

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

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

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

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez

Macias failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

      Because Ramirez Macias does not challenge the agency’s determination that

his returnee-based particular social group is not cognizable, this issue is waived.

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).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez Macias’s particular social group

related to gang opposition because the BIA did not err in declining to consider it.

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must

exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez Macias’s contentions regarding his

religion because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See id. Thus,

Ramirez Macias’s withholding of removal claim fails.

                                          2                                    16-73923
      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Ramirez Macias failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68

(9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

      We reject Ramirez Macias’s contention that the agency erred in its legal

analysis or ignored evidence or arguments in denying his CAT claim.

      The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                              3                               16-73923