NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO MAY-CUICH, No. 15-72651
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-682-059
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arturo May-Cuich, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
May-Cuich does not raise, and has thus waived, any challenge to the
agency’s dispositive determination that he failed to establish changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. 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).
May-Cuich also does not challenge the agency’s determination that the
proposed particular social groups of “insulin dependent diabetics” and “Mexican
nationals returning to Mexico after living many years in the United States” were
not cognizable. Id. We reject as unsupported by the record May-Cuich’s
contention that the agency erred in its formulation of his proposed social groups.
Thus, May-Cuich’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
May-Cuich 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2