Luis Nunez-Gomez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS NUNEZ-GOMEZ, No. 17-71149
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-806-911
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 29, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Nunez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
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).
review the agency’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059
(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
Nunez-Gomez has waived his challenge to the agency’s denial of his asylum
application by failing to challenge the agency’s determination, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), that his application was time barred. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder,
594 F.3d 701, 703 nn.1–2 (9th Cir. 2010).
The agency permissibly denied Nunez-Gomez’s application for withholding
because substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Nunez-Gomez
failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution. INS
v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Nunez-Gomez testified that the
Zapatistas never threatened or harmed him, and he admitted that he does not know
the identity of the men who possibly burned down his cabin.1 Nunez-Gomez’s
fears of future persecution are all tied to his local community in Mexico and the
record does not compel the conclusion that he could not reasonably relocate to
another part of Mexico to avoid harm. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
1
We lack jurisdiction to consider Nunez-Gomez’s argument that he was
persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group of
“individuals that suffered domestic violence and w[ere] not able to flee” because
he failed to raise this argument before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
The agency permissibly denied Nunez-Gomez’s application for CAT relief
because the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not
that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011).
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3