NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARREON, No. 17-71202
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-129-153
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carreon, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
*
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).
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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process
violations 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 record does not compel the conclusion that Carreon established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Carreon’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Carreon failed
to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not
objectively reasonable). The agency did not err in not considering Carreon’s
returnee-based social group. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th
Cir. 2019) (BIA did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first
time on appeal); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007)
(claims not raised before IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal). Thus,
Carreon’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2
In his opening brief, Carreon does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he
waived his CAT claim, 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 his contentions as to the merits of
CAT relief, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Finally, Carreon’s contentions that the agency did not give him an
opportunity to present evidence or brief his eligibility for asylum, and that the
agency was required to make a credibility determination fail. 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