Siguenza Garay v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 22-881
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE SIGUENZA GARAY, No. 22-881 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-901-159 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted **

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Siguenza Garay, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming without

opinion an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

* 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the Board’s

legal conclusions de novo and the Boards’s factual findings for substantial

evidence. Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). We

deny the petition for review.

We do not disturb the Board’s determination that Siguenza Garay failed to

establish he suffered past persecution because the mistreatment he suffered was not

shown to be on account of a protected ground.

The Board did not err in concluding that Siguenza Garay’s proposed

particular social group is not cognizable. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d

1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding proposed particular social group lacked social

distinction because the record failed to establish society perceived its members as a

distinct group). Siguenza Garay’s contentions regarding newly proposed particular

social groups and a political opinion claim are not properly before us because he

failed to raise them before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Santos-

Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417–19 (2023); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69

F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023), as amended.

Accordingly, Siguenza Garay’s asylum claim fails.

Because Siguenza Garay failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he fails to

satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland,

2 22-881 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief because

Siguenza Garay failed to show he is more likely than not to be tortured by or with

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

We do not consider the materials Siguenza Garay references in his opening

brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d

955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-881