RAMIREZ ENRIQUEZ v. BARR (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Adan RAMIREZ-ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72696

Decided: April 22, 2019

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Bernard Joseph, Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

MEMORANDUM **

Adan Ramirez-Enriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Ramirez-Enriquez raises new contentions regarding the merits of his asylum claim. We lack jurisdiction to review those contentions because he failed to raise them to 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). Ramirez-Enriquez otherwise fails to challenge the agency’s determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Ramirez-Enriquez’s asylum claim fails.

Ramirez-Enriquez also waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears in El Salvador and a protected ground. See id. Thus, Ramirez-Enriquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ramirez-Enriquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ramirez-Enriquez’s opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network