MARVIN CLAVEL V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72906 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN CLAVEL, AKA Marvin Stanly Clavel Rodriguez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72906 Agency No. A047-298-208 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Marvin Clavel, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is * 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). governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider the social group Clavel proposes for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Clavel failed to argue a protected ground was a central reason for the harm he experienced in the past and fears in the future. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (Under the REAL ID, applicant must prove that a protected ground represents ‘one central reason’ for persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, Clavel makes no arguments challenging the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-72906
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
