eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-06

Rigoberto Mendoza-Pablo v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO MENDOZA-PABLO, AKA                    No.    15-71904
Rogoberto Mendoza-Pablo,
Agency No. A205-489-494
Petitioner,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Mendoza-Pablo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
*
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).
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Mendoza-Pablo does not challenge the agency’s denial
of cancellation of removal or 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
cancellation of removal and relief under CAT.
Mendoza-Pablo also does not challenge the agency’s determination that his
proposed social groups based on being a “healthy young man” or a “young
indigenous Guatemalan” were not cognizable. See
    id.
     The agency did not err in
finding that Mendoza-Pablo’s proposed social group based on resistance to gang
recruitment was not cognizable. 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
2                                     15-71904
distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,
    26 I. & N. Dec. 227
    , 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barrios v. Holder,
    581 F.3d 849
    , 856 (9th
Cir. 2009) (finding that young men in Guatemala who resist gang recruitment did
not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Mendoza-Pablo’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Pablo’s contentions that his past
harm rose to the level of persecution because he did not raise them to the BIA. 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.
3                                   15-71904