Ramiro Lopez-Ruiz v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMIRO SERGIO LOPEZ-RUIZ, AKA No. 15-72715
Carlos Martinez-Ruiz,
Agency No. A200-150-993
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Sergio Lopez-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Lopez-
Ruiz’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Lopez-Ruiz’s
*
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).
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 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 for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Lopez-Ruiz has waived any challenge to the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum application was untimely. Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Lopez-Ruiz failed to establish a nexus between the harm he
fears from his brother’s wife’s family and a protected ground. See Zayas–Marini
v. INS, 785 F.2d 801, 806 (9th Cir. 1986) (death threats grounded only in “personal
animosity” insufficient to qualify for withholding of removal). As Lopez-Ruiz
does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his claimed social group of
Mexicans returning from the United States is not cognizable, he has waived any
argument based thereon. Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259–60. Thus, Lopez-
Ruiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2
In his petition for review, Lopez-Ruiz also does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that he failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. Thus, he
has waived the issue. Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259–60.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3