Arturo MAY-CUICH, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: April 15, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Maarja Tiganik Luhtaru, Jessica E. Burns, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Arturo May-Cuich, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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”). 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.
May-Cuich does not raise, and has thus waived, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. 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).
May-Cuich also does not challenge the agency’s determination that the proposed particular social groups of “insulin dependent diabetics” and “Mexican nationals returning to Mexico after living many years in the United States” were not cognizable. Id. We reject as unsupported by the record May-Cuich’s contention that the agency erred in its formulation of his proposed social groups. Thus, May-Cuich’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because May-Cuich failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
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.