Oscar RAMIREZ-JASSO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: April 10, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Omar Nakib, Attorney, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner Rachel Louise Browning, Trial Attorney, Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Oscar Ramirez-Jasso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Ramirez-Jasso does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal. 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). Ramirez-Jasso also does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to cancellation of removal and relief under CAT.
As to withholding of removal, Ramirez-Jasso does not challenge the agency’s determination that his returnee-based social group was not cognizable. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez-Jasso failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). The record does not support Ramirez-Jasso’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). Thus, Ramirez-Jasso’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.