NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOE RAMOS-FELIPE, AKA Noe Ramos, No. 16-72550
AKA Noe Ramos-Deleon,
Agency No. A205-719-758
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Noe Ramos-Felipe, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 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.
Ramos-Felipe does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that
he failed to challenge the IJ’s finding that his asylum application was time barred.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramos-Felipe
failed to establish that the harm from gangs he experienced and fears in Guatemala
was or will be on account of a political opinion. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849,
856 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a political opinion claim failed where petitioner did
not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s
ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). In
addition, the agency did not err in finding that Ramos-Felipe failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
2 16-72550
1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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 distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26
I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barrios, 581 F.3d at 854-55 (men in
Guatemala resisting gang violence is not a particular social group). We lack
jurisdiction to consider the new protected grounds and proposed social groups
raised in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004). Thus, Ramos-Felipe’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ramos-Felipe failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The record does not support Ramos-Felipe’s contentions that the BIA failed
to consider evidence, ignored arguments, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need
not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Ramos-Felipe’s remaining
3 16-72550
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
4 16-72550