Court Opinion

ID: 9891906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 19:00:46.970031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:13.159236
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE PINEDA-ASCENCIO,                           No. 23-176
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A095-044-964
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Pineda-Ascencio, 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 (“IJ”) 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for

review.

      Because Pineda-Ascencio does not contest the BIA’s determination that he

waived challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determinations that he failed to establish

past persecution, a probability of future persecution, nexus to a protected ground,

and that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect him, we do

not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.

2013). We do not address Pineda-Ascencio’s contentions as to his credibility and

the cognizability of his proposed particular social group because the BIA did not

deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,

829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the

grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)). Thus, Pineda-Ascencio’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      Because Pineda-Ascencio does not contest the BIA’s determination that he

waived challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that he failed to show he will

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

El Salvador, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80;

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be

‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

                                         2                                    23-176
official or other person acting in an official capacity’”) (internal citation

omitted).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                     23-176