Moise Galicia-Corado v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOISE ALEJANDRO GALICIA- No. 14-72685
CORADO, AKA Moise Corado, AKA
Moise Alejandro Galicia, AKA Moise Agency No. A087-526-738
Galicia Corado, AKA Moise A. Galicia-
Corado,
MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Moise Alejandro Galicia-Corado, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
*
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).
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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Galicia-Corado established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th
Cir. 2010) (extraordinary circumstances did not excuse untimely asylum
application where petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel but failed to
comply with Matter of Lozada requirements). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to Galicia-Corado’s asylum claim.
Galicia-Corado’s argument that the BIA failed to consider the elements of
his proposed social groups cumulatively is unexhausted, see Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency), and Galicia-Corado does not otherwise challenge the
BIA’s determination that he failed to establish past or future harm on account of a
protected ground, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
2 14-72685
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, Galicia-Corado’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Galicia-Corado’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured at the instigation, or with the consent or acquiescence, of the government
of El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Galicia-Corado’s
contentions that the BIA erred in its analysis and violated his right to due process.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
Galicia-Corado’s motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance (Docket Entry
No. 8) is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-72685