Carlos Agustin CACERES, aka Juan Perez Hernandez, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: April 10, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner Julia Tyler, Esquire, 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
Carlos Agustin Caceres, 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 withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Caceres does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determinations that he failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground, including his political opinion, or that his social group based on his status as a returnee was not cognizable. 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). To the extent Caceres raises a social group based on his relationship to his brother, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. 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, Caceres’ withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Caceres’ contentions regarding credibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Caceres’ contentions that the agency violated his due process rights by failing to consider his asylum application fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We do not address Caceres’ contentions regarding his eligibility for asylum. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
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.