JORGE BLANCAS FARIAS V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-71528 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JORGE BLANCAS FARIAS, AKA Rodolfp No. 20-71528 Nunez-Avilez, Agency No. A209-384-200 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jorge Blancas Farias, 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 application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 124142 (9th Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1241. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Blancas Farias established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, Blancas Farias’ asylum claim fails. In his opening brief, Blanca Farias does not raise and has therefore waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that he lacked nexus to any political opinion. 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). The BIA did not err in concluding that Blancas Farias did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting 2 20-71528 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also RamirezMunoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Blancas Farias’ withholding of removal claim fails. Blancas Farias’ contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence fails as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA need not write an exegesis on every contention); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-71528
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.
