NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIPE NERY MUNOZ-ASCENCIO, No. 14-74023 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-815-929 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 3, 2020** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Felipe Nery Munoz-Ascencio, 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 asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, * 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). 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Munoz- Ascencio failed to establish that the threats from guerrillas rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual ‘suffering or harm.’” (citation omitted)). In his opening brief, Munoz-Ascencio fails to challenge the agency’s determination that the harm he fears in El Salvador would be on account of a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Munoz-Ascencio’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. We lack jurisdiction to consider Munoz-Ascencio’s contentions regarding an imputed political opinion and a newly proposed particular social group of “former El Salvadorian soldiers threatened by Salvadorian leftists” because they were not raised to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-74023 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Felipe Munoz-Ascencio v. William Barr 9 March 2020 Agency Unpublished 59067388cc831c7cae6129e03371515b637cb71d
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals