SANTOS RAMIREZ v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-22No. No. 16-71059

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Lorenzo Santos-Ramirez, a Mexican national, sought review of an immigration board decision that rejected his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court examined whether the immigration agency's denials were supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner failed to challenge several key determinations in his opening brief, including that his asylum claim was filed too late, that his proposed social group was not legally cognizable, and that his fear lacked connection to a protected ground, thereby waiving those arguments.

On the merits, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency's findings that Santos-Ramirez did not suffer persecution at the required level, did not establish a clear probability of future persecution based on family membership, and failed to demonstrate he would more likely than not face torture by the Mexican government or with its consent if returned. The court also rejected his contentions of due process violations and other procedural errors.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether asylum claim was time-barred
Whether petitioner suffered persecution qualifying for withholding of removal
Whether petitioner established eligibility for Convention Against Torture relief
Whether petitioner waived claims by failing to raise them in opening brief

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that affirmed an immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Lorenzo Santos-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges 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 agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Santos-Ramirez does not challenge the agencys dispositive determination that his asylum application is time-barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived). Thus, Santos-Ramirezs asylum claim fails.

Santos-Ramirez also does not raise any argument challenging, and therefore waives, the agencys determinations that his proposed social group of returnees with perceived wealth is not cognizable and that his fear of general crime and violence bears no nexus to a protected ground. See id.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Santos-Ramirez failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (past persecution based on harm to others requires showing that the persecution was part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agencys determination that Santos-Ramirez did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of his family membership. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[F]ear of future persecution is weakened, even undercut, when similar-situated family members living in the petitioners home country are not harmed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, Santos-Ramirezs withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Santos-Ramirez 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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Santos-Ramirezs contentions that the agency violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims.

As stated in the courts July 6, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.