NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ALVAREZ RUIZ, AKA Francisco No. 14-71427
Alvarez, AKA Gerardo Casares, AKA Alex
Ramirez, Agency No. A077-068-317
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Alvarez Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
*
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).
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
As to past persecution, the agency found Alvarez Ruiz was not credible
regarding the only direct past harm he allegedly experienced in Mexico, namely,
his claim of arrest and abuse by police. Alvarez Ruiz does not challenge this
finding. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed
waived). As to future harm, the agency found Alvarez Ruiz’s proposed social
group was not cognizable. He does not challenge this finding. See id. Further, we
lack jurisdiction to consider the new social group he presents to the court for the
first time. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner
must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Because Alvarez Ruiz
does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s basis for denying withholding of removal,
we deny the petition for review as to this claim.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Alvarez Ruiz’s
CAT claim because he did not show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of the government if returned to
2 14-71427
Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-71427