NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABINO MORALES RAMIREZ, No. 14-72519
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-242-344
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Gabino Morales Ramirez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
*
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).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We reject as unsupported by the record Morales Ramirez’s contentions that
the BIA ignored his “Transnational Criminal Organizations” argument and that the
agency applied incorrect case law.
In his opening brief, Morales Ramirez fails to otherwise meaningfully
challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum application was untimely.
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). Morales
Ramirez also fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that he
failed to establish that any harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground. Id. Thus, Morales Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination
that Morales Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
to his qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Arteaga-De
Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 736 (9th Cir. 2012) (court lacks jurisdiction to
2 14-72519
review merits of hardship determination and only retains jurisdiction over
constitutional claims that have “some possible validity” (citation omitted)). To the
extent Morales Ramirez raises due process contentions as to the denial of
cancellation of removal, we reject his contentions. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (the agency applies
the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in
rendering its decision). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Morales
Ramirez’s remaining contentions regarding the IJ’s discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72519