Rene Vasquez-Garcia v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE VASQUEZ-GARCIA, AKA Juan No. 19-73134
Gonzalez Garcia,
Agency No. A070-954-693
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Rene Vasquez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision terminating asylum status and denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime
determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir.
2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Vasquez-
Garcia’s conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) was a particularly
serious crime that barred him from withholding of removal, where it applied the
appropriate factors to weigh the seriousness of the crime in a case-specific inquiry.
See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (“Our review is limited to ensuring
that the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach this
conclusion.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, Vasquez-
Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Vasquez-Garcia does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the
agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT and the termination and denial
of asylum. Thus, these issues are waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not
specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez-Garcia’s contentions as to the
2 19-73134
conduct of proceedings and alleged errors and delays by the IJ, government
counsel, and government agency officials because he did not raise any of these
issues to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-73134