NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS AGUSTIN CACERES, AKA No. 16-73679 Juan Perez Hernandez, Agency No. A200-880-299 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Carlos Agustin Caceres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due * 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). process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Caceres does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determinations that he failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground, including his political opinion, or that his social group based on his status as a returnee was not cognizable. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). To the extent Caceres raises a social group based on his relationship to his brother, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Caceres’ withholding of removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Caceres’ contentions regarding credibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Caceres’ contentions that the agency violated his due process rights by failing to consider his asylum application fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We do not 2 16-73679 address Caceres’ contentions regarding his eligibility for asylum. See Santiago- Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-73679 16-73679 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Carlos Caceres v. William Barr 10 April 2020 Agency Unpublished 2cdc3db980594919a12aeba851b19be38d41601e
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals