Gilberto Pleitez Pleitez v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 17 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GILBERTO PLEITEZ PLEITEZ, AKA                   No.    20-72321
    Gilberto Plietez Plietez,
    Agency No. A208-152-764
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 14, 2021**
    Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Gilberto Pleitez Pleitez, 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
    *
    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).
    (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review factual
    findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85
    (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
    remand. Taggar v. Holder, 
    736 F.3d 886
    , 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo
    claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Arellano Hernandez
    v. Lynch, 
    831 F.3d 1127
    , 1130 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
    Pleitez Pleitez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was
    or would be on account of a protected ground, including his religious beliefs. See
    Ayala v. Holder, 
    640 F.3d 1095
    , 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a
    particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution
    was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder,
    
    622 F.3d 1007
    , 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a petitioner’s “desire to be free from
    harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
    bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Pleitez Pleitez’s motion to
    remand where he did not delineate the proposed particular social group for which
    he contends the IJ failed to seek clarification. See Shin v. Mukasey, 
    547 F.3d 1019
    ,
    1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicants “who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to
    pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened,
    the new evidence would likely change the result in the case” (quoting Matter of
    2                                    20-72321
    Coelho, 
    20 I. & N. Dec. 464
    , 473 (BIA 1992))); see also Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-
    B-, 
    27 I. & N. Dec. 189
    , 191 (BIA 2018) (noting that “it is an applicant’s burden to
    specifically delineate [his] proposed social group”).
    Pleitez Pleitez’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his request to remand
    violated his right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th
    Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
    Thus, Pleitez Pleitez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
    In his opening brief, Pleitez Pleitez does not challenge the determination that
    he did not demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief, and thus he has waived the claim.
    See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 
    718 F.3d 1174
    , 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to
    contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
    The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
    mandate.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3                                     20-72321