JOSE VASQUEZ-NINO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 16-73141 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS VASQUEZ-NINO, AKA Jose Luis Vasquez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73141 Agency No. A205-004-513 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Vasquez-Nino1, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal * 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). 1 In petitioner’s testimony before the immigration judge and in his Opening Brief, he asserts that his true name is Jose Luis Vasquez-Pina. from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Vasquez-Nino does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he waived his challenge to the IJ’s denial of his asylum application as untimely filed. 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). We lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez-Nino’s contentions as to exceptions to the time limitation for asylum applications because he did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Vasquez-Nino’s asylum claim. Vasquez-Nino does not contend the BIA erred in concluding that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that he did not suffer past persecution. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vasquez-Nino failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in 2 16-73141 Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus, Vasquez-Nino’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Vasquez-Nino failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). Vasquez-Nino’s contentions that the BIA erred in its analysis of his CAT claim fail as unsupported by the record. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1)-(6). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 16-73141
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.
