Sergio Marroquin-Osorio v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 23, 2023
• Docket: 20-71004
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO MANUEL MARROQUIN- No. 20-71004 OSORIO, Agency No. A206-480-070 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Manuel Marroquin-Osorio, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

* 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Because Marroquin-Osorio does not challenge the agency’s adverse

credibility determination, this issue is forfeited. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706

F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in

this case, Marroquin-Osorio’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We do not address Marroquin-Osorio’s contentions as to the merits of his

asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny relief on

these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.

2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied

upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Marroquin-Osorio also does not challenge, and therefore forfeits, the

agency’s denial of CAT protection. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 20-71004