Nilson Gonzalez-Vasquez v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NILSON EDUARDO GONZALEZ- No. 18-70870
VASQUEZ,
Agency No. A205-524-782
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Nilson Eduardo Gonzalez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Gonzalez-Vasquez does not challenge, and therefore
forfeits, the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Gonzalez-Vasquez also forfeits
any challenge to the denial of CAT protection. Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
We do not consider Gonzalez-Vasquez’s claims based on particular social
groups of returnees or witnesses to crimes because the BIA did not decide these
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 Gonzalez-Vasquez does
not contend the BIA erred in finding that these claims were not properly before it,
see Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez-Vasquez’s contention that the IJ
violated his due process rights because he did not raise it before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 18-70870