NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILBER MAURICIO VASQUEZ-LEON, No. 18-72813 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-464-954 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. Wilber Mauricio Vasquez-Leon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review de novo due process claims 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. The BIA did not err in finding that Vasquez-Leon failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). To the extent the social groups Vasquez-Leon raises in his opening brief differ from what he raised to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We do not reach Vasquez-Leon’s contentions that his past harm rose to the level of persecution and that he established he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual 2 grounds relied upon by the BIA). Thus, Vasquez-Leon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Vasquez-Leon does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’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), and we lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez- Leon’s arguments that he is eligible for relief under CAT because he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals