NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE REFUGIO SALAZAR-REYES, No. 19-71682
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-963-363
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Refugio Salazar-Reyes, 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 decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
*
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).
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We 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 claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v.
Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Salazar-Reyes does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application is time-barred. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Salazar-
Reyes’ asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salazar-Reyes
failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past
experiences, including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel
a finding of past persecution); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17
(9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and harassment did not rise to the level of
persecution).
In addition, the agency did not err in finding that Salazar-Reyes did not
establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
2 19-71682
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))); see also Ramirez-
Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed
wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social
group).
We do not consider Salazar-Reyes’ contentions concerning the cognizability
of his family-based social group or his fear of future persecution on account of his
membership in that group because the BIA did not reach those issues, see
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited
to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Salazar-Reyes does not argue that was in
error, see Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.
Thus, Salazar-Reyes’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Salazar-Reyes’ request to remand proceedings for lack of jurisdiction is
foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission
of certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional
purposes by later hearing notice).
3 19-71682
Finally, Salazar-Reyes’ contention that the agency violated his due process
rights or otherwise erred in its analysis of his case fails. See Padilla-Martinez v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim).
As stated in the court’s August 28, 2019 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 19-71682