NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
RUBIO ALEXANDER GRAMAJO, No. 18-72358
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-243-464
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.
Rubio Alexander Gramajo, 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
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). 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.
In his opening brief, Gramajo states that he does not challenge the agency’s
adverse credibility determination. 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). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Gramajo’s corroborative evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for
withholding of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014)
(petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support
claim). Thus, Gramajo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
To the extent the social group Gramajo raises in his opening brief differs
from what he raised to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not presented to the agency).
The BIA did not err in finding that Gramajo waived his claim for relief
under CAT. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad
statements in the notice of appeal and brief were insufficient to put the BIA on
notice of petitioner’s claim). We lack jurisdiction to consider Gramajo’s
2
contentions as to the merits of relief under CAT because he did not raise this claim
before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
Gramajo’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights fails.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3