NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO LUIS SANCHEZ-VALDEZ, No. 20-72906 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-147-850 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Pedro Luis Sanchez-Valdez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 application for 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in concluding that Sanchez-Valdez failed to 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, Sanchez- Valdez’s withholding of removal claim fails. In his opening brief, Sanchez-Valdez does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim, 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), and we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions as to the merits of his CAT claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). 2 20-72906 We also lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez-Valdez’s contentions as to the IJ’s denial of a motion to continue because he did not raise them before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 20-72906 20-72906 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Pedro Sanchez-Valdez v. Merrick Garland 21 January 2022 Agency Unpublished 62a81619413efa8e740ecf486cb2ce17af030180
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals