OSCAR RAMIREZ-JASSO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-72065 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR RAMIREZ-JASSO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-72065 Agency No. A201-222-702 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Oscar Ramirez-Jasso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Ramirez-Jasso does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Ramirez-Jasso also does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to cancellation of removal and relief under CAT. As to withholding of removal, Ramirez-Jasso does not challenge the agency’s determination that his returnee-based social group was not cognizable. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that RamirezJasso failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). The record does not support Ramirez-Jasso’s contentions that the BIA failed to 2 17-72065 consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). Thus, Ramirez-Jasso’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-72065
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.
