Uriel Moreno-Gonzalez v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
URIEL ANTONIO MORENO- No. 19-70661
GONZALEZ,
Agency No. A208-687-436
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, BADE, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Antonio Moreno-Gonzalez, 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
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
In his opening brief, Moreno-Gonzales does not challenge the agency’s
dispositive conclusion that his proposed particular social group, “victims of police
brutality,” was not cognizable. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the new proposed particular social group
Moreno-Gonzalez raised in his opening brief, “people targeted for death by gang
members who have Government Police working from them under color of law,”
because he did not raise this group before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
Thus, Moreno-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Moreno-Gonzalez’s contentions as to the
IJ’s denial of his CAT claim because he failed to challenge this decision to the
BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
2 19-70661
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Moreno-Gonzalez’s contentions that
the IJ misinterpreted the law and did not allow him to present evidence. See id.As stated in the court’s May 21, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-70661