FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 8 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE WILSON MOLINA, No. 20-72043 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-836-784 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 13, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jose Wilson Molina is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States around August 2004 without inspection. He seeks relief from denial of an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (CAT) by an immigration judge (IJ) that was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The agency determined that Molina’s asylum claim was time barred and that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal because his proposed particular social groups were not legally cognizable, he had failed to establish nexus, he had not demonstrated that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him, and he could reasonably relocate to avoid harm. Molina contends that the agency erred in all respects.1 The government has sought remand to the agency to consider, in the first instance, the implications of the vacatur of Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), by Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021), on the agency’s cognizability and nexus determinations.2 Because our decision does not rest on either determination, we deny the motion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 1 Although Molina nominally asserts that the agency erred in denying his CAT claim, he presents no legal argument to support the contention, and his claim is abandoned. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). 2 We recognize that the government’s counsel was delayed in filing the motion for remand because of a life-threatening health emergency. The timing of the motion plays no role in our decision. 2 Where the BIA affirms the IJ and cites its decision in Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), while adding its own analysis, we review the decisions of the IJ and BIA together, and we review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2013); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). A petitioner contending that the agency’s findings are erroneous must establish that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it. See Bringas- Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (“A …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals