NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN ESCOBEDO AGUILERA, No. 19-73068 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-391-853 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 11, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge. Juan Escobedo Aguilera, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In Escobedo Aguilera’s opening brief he does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenges to the BIA’s 2019 determinations regarding his alienage and inadmissibility. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). To the extent Escobedo Aguilera argues that the IJ erred in deeming him credible with regard to alienage and inadmissibility, but not credible with regard to his applications for relief, that argument is unexhausted because he failed to raise this to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Escobedo Aguilera challenges only the agency’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. Because Escobedo Aguilera does not challenge the agency’s determinations that he is ineligible for 2 19-73068 cancellation of removal and asylum, these claims are waived. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Escobedo Aguilera did not suffer past persecution because, for example, he conceded he was never harmed in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (in the absence of past persecution, there is no presumption of future persecution, and the applicant must show it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground). The agency did not err in concluding that Escobedo Aguilera failed to establish his membership in a cognizable particular social group, because his proposed social group is too broad to be cognizable. See Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals