NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TULIO ISMAEL CANTARERO-LEMUS, No. 19-71287 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-808-401 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK,*** District Judge. Tulio Ismael Cantarero-Lemus, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his * 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). *** The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184– 85 (9th Cir. 2006). “A finding . . . is not supported by substantial evidence when any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We grant in part, deny in part, and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Cantarero-Lemus does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s determinations that the past harm he experienced did not rise to the level of persecution, that he failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a political opinion, and that his proposed social groups “young Honduran men who have opposed or resisted the MS 18 gang” and “family members of business owners who are targeted by the MS 18 gang” were not cognizable. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived); Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”). 2 We do not address Cantarero-Lemus’s contentions as to the cognizability of his remaining family-based particular social group and the issue of whether the government is unwilling or unable to protect him 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 omitted)). The BIA’s determination that Cantarero-Lemus failed to establish that he would be persecuted “on account ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals