NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID VASQUEZ VASQUEZ, No. 21-892 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-713-068 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 17, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. David Vasquez Vasquez (Vasquez), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in * 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). part. 1. We lack jurisdiction over Vasquez’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal because Vasquez advances no colorable legal or constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D); Mendez- Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.” (quotation omitted)). The BIA denied Vasquez’s application as a matter of overall discretion, and Vasquez raises no specific challenge to this finding, let alone a colorable legal or constitutional claim. 2. We review denials of asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). Under that standard, we “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum, Vasquez must demonstrate a “likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, he must show a “clear probability” of such harm. Id. (quotation omitted). 2 The BIA denied Vasquez’s asylum application as untimely, and Vasquez has not challenged that determination in his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (alien must “demonstrate[] by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.”); Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing one-year time limit on asylum applications). This is dispositive of Vasquez’s asylum application. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) (issues not raised in the opening brief are waived). The BIA also denied asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that Vasquez’s proposed social …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals