FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 20 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ALBERTO PALMA-CHAVEZ, No. 12-72218
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-148-624
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges and LAMBERTH,*** Senior
District Judge.
David Palma-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
of removal, and CAT relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny
the petition.
Palma argues that the BIA erred in its determination that he does not belong
to a cognizable particular social group for purposes of withholding relief.
However, even if Palma were a member of such a group, he has not contested
before this court the Board’s conclusion that his withholding claim nonetheless
fails because of insufficient evidence that “any persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group.” Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097
(9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (emphasis in original). He has therefore waived any
argument to that effect, Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.
1996), and the Board’s denial of withholding relief on that basis must be upheld.
The BIA also did not err in failing to consider Palma’s claim for CAT relief.
The Board stated that it deemed the issue waived because of Palma’s failure to
meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief on appeal. Although Palma
briefly mentioned his CAT claim in his brief before the BIA, he failed to
specifically challenge any of the IJ’s legal conclusions or factual findings.
Accordingly, the Board did not err in holding those claims waived.
PETITION DENIED.
2