FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 11 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERTO BARRIENTOS-LOPEZ, No. 18-73253 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-151-397 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: M. SMITH, N.R. SMITH, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Alberto Barrientos-Lopez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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”).1 Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions. Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. 1. Despite the defects in the Notice to Appear, the IJ had jurisdiction to conduct removal proceedings as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that “a notice to appear that does not specify the time and place of an alien’s initial removal hearing vests an [IJ] with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien” (alteration omitted) (quoting Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441, 447 (BIA 2018)). After the initial Notice to Appear, Barrientos-Lopez was provided subsequent notice of the time and place of the hearings, and he appeared at the scheduled hearings. See id. at 1161-62. Accordingly, we also have jurisdiction over this appeal. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Barrientos-Lopez failed to establish a nexus between any harm he may suffer and a protected ground, because his three proposed social groups—“Mexicans with mental disabilities,” “Mexicans with schizophrenia who do not have access to adequate mental health 1 Barrientos-Lopez did not challenge the denial of cancellation of removal in his opening brief. Thus, it is waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 services,” or “Mexicans with mental illness whose mental health causes them to behave erratically”— were not cognizable.2 See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016). Although Barrientos-Lopez submitted evidence of how Latinos in the United States and Latin America perceive persons with mental illness, nothing in the record or in the BIA’s decision demonstrates that the BIA mischaracterized or misinterpreted the submitted evidence. Further, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that Mexican society perceives persons with mental illness as a distinct group. See id. at 1137-38. Accordingly, because Barrientos-Lopez has failed to establish a cognizable social group, he has not met his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals