NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILBER MAURICIO VASQUEZ-LEON, No. 18-72813
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-464-954
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Wilber Mauricio Vasquez-Leon, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
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 de novo due process claims in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Vasquez-Leon failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular
social 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))). To the extent the
social groups Vasquez-Leon raises in his opening brief differ from what he raised
to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency). We do not reach Vasquez-Leon’s contentions that his
past harm rose to the level of persecution and that he established he was or would
be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual
2
grounds relied upon by the BIA). Thus, Vasquez-Leon’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail.
Vasquez-Leon does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived
any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, 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), and we lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez-
Leon’s arguments that he is eligible for relief under CAT because he did not raise
them to the BIA, see Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
We reject Vasquez-Leon’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or
erred in its analysis of his case. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision); 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.
3