Jose Grijalva-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Jose Grijalva-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.

591 F. App'x 572

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

Docket12-72885

StatusUnpublished

This text of 591 F. App'x 572 (Jose Grijalva-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jose Grijalva-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr., 591 F. App'x 572 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Grijalva-Flores, 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 protection 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Grijalva-Flores does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding that he withdrew his asylum application, or make any arguments regarding CAT relief. 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, we deny the petition as to Grijalva-Flores’s asylum and CAT claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Grijalva-Flores’s experi *573 ence didi not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2005) (record did not compel finding of past persecution). Further, contrary to Grijalva-Flores’s contention, the agency did not improperly analyze his past persecution claim. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Grijalva-Flores did not establish it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted, given his relocation without incident within El Salvador, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir.2001), and the absence of any evidence of continuing interest in him, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Grijalva-Flores’s social group contentions. Thus, his claim for withholding of removal fails.

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab . Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Grijalva-Flores, 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 protection 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Grijalva-Flores does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding that he withdrew his asylum application, or make any arguments regarding CAT relief. 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, we deny the petition as to Grijalva-Flores’s asylum and CAT claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Grijalva-Flores’s experi *573 ence didi not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2005) (record did not compel finding of past persecution). Further, contrary to Grijalva-Flores’s contention, the agency did not improperly analyze his past persecution claim. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Grijalva-Flores did not establish it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted, given his relocation without incident within El Salvador, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir.2001), and the absence of any evidence of continuing interest in him, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Grijalva-Flores’s social group contentions. Thus, his claim for withholding of removal fails.

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab . Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 F. App'x 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-grijalva-flores-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack