Wilder Barrios Juarez v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILDER BENEDICTO BARRIOS No. 18-73128
JUAREZ,
Agency No. A206-632-616
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Wilder Benedicto Barrios Juarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) summarily affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
*
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).
his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review
the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey,
551 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition.
1. Construed liberally, Barrios Juarez’s pro se brief does not challenge the
IJ’s dispositive determination that his proposed particular social groups are
not defined with sufficient particularity and are not socially distinct. Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that
issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Even if this issue is not waived, Barrios Juarez has not presented sufficient
evidence to compel a finding that Guatemalan society perceives the proposed
social groups as distinct. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1180–
82 (9th Cir. 2021). Because Barrios Juarez’s failure to establish a cognizable
social group is dispositive as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims, we
need not address any other component of the IJ’s reasoning. See Nguyen v. Barr,
983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Barrios Juarez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
2
Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
3