NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
JUAN ANTONIO LARA-LOPEZ; et al., No. 16-70306
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-758-113
A206-758-112
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
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.
Juan Antonio Lara-Lopez and his minor child, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications 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 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.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s
determination that the proposed social group of “Salvadoran males subject to
extortion, recruitment efforts and threats by Salvadoran gangs” was not cognizable.
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). Petitioners
also fail to challenge the agency’s determination that they failed to establish that
the harm they experienced or fear in El Salvador was or would be on account of a
protected ground. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding political
opinion and any newly proposed particular social group because they were not
raised to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
2
The record does not support petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to
consider an argument based on Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3