Pablo Ramirez-Benitez v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: 20-73277
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PABLO HAYDHAR RAMIREZ-BENITEZ, No. 20-73277

Petitioner, Agency No. A204-326-594

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2024** San Jose, California

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Pablo Haydhar Ramirez-Benitez is a native and citizen of Mexico.

In the underlying proceeding, he conceded removability and applied for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). He seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of all forms of requested

relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.1

1. With respect to asylum, the IJ ruled that Petitioner’s application was

time-barred because he did not file it within one year of arriving in the United

States and because no exception to the one-year bar applied. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.4(a)(2). The BIA agreed. In this court, Petitioner does not challenge that

dispositive ruling, so the validity of the agency’s denial of asylum is forfeited.

See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that an

issue not “specifically and distinctly” argued in the opening brief is forfeited).

2. With respect to withholding of removal, the agency ruled that

Petitioner’s proposed particular social group—young, able-bodied males of

Mexican descent who are recent deportees with criminal histories—is not

cognizable. The BIA, on de novo review of the IJ’s conclusion, held that

Petitioner’s proposed group lacks particularity. We review that conclusion de

novo, Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020), and agree with the

BIA, see, e.g., id. at 1103 (holding that “known drug users” is not a cognizable

group because it lacks particularity); Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60

(9th Cir. 2019) (holding that “individuals returning to Mexico from the United

1 Petitioner’s motion to stay appellate proceedings or administratively close case and alternative motion to refer case to mediation, Docket No. 52, is DENIED.

2 States” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group (brackets and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

3. Petitioner’s opening brief makes no mention of his request for CAT

relief. Any argument concerning the denial of such relief is therefore

forfeited. See Hernandez, 47 F.4th at 916.

PETITION DENIED.