NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 2 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MIGUEL HILARIO MARCOS No. 18-72063 VICENTE, Agency No. A208-604-288 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 31, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Miguel Hilario Marcos Vicente, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding * 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). of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we review questions of law de novo, Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review. Marcos fails to challenge, and therefore waives, the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 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). The BIA did not err in declining to consider Marcos’s arguments concerning a claim based on his Mayan heritage or an unidentified particular social group, theories that were raised for the first time to the BIA. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (BIA did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal); In Re J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues not raised to the IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal). As to asylum and withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Marcos failed to establish that the threats, extortion, and physical harm he suffered were on account of his political opinion or membership in a particular social group. 2 The IJ denied the application on the ground that the persecution he suffered was not on account of his political opinion. Although the IJ found that Marcos had testified credibly that he was a member of the UNE political party, that he had been asked to join a rival political party by men wearing uniforms and had refused, and that he was later extorted and attacked by masked men wearing the same uniforms, the IJ found that he had not established that the extortion and attack were connected to the earlier recruitment attempts. The IJ was not compelled to accept Marcos’s inference that, because the unidentified uniforms were the same in both encounters, he was targeted due to his UNE involvement or his failure to join the rival political party. Several months had elapsed between the day he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals