RAMIRO LOPEZ-RUIZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-72715 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMIRO SERGIO LOPEZ-RUIZ, AKA Carlos Martinez-Ruiz, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72715 Agency No. A200-150-993 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Ramiro Sergio Lopez-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing LopezRuiz’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Lopez-Ruiz’s * 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). application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Lopez-Ruiz has waived any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, his asylum claim fails. As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez-Ruiz failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears from his brother’s wife’s family and a protected ground. See Zayas–Marini v. INS, 785 F.2d 801, 806 (9th Cir. 1986) (death threats grounded only in “personal animosity” insufficient to qualify for withholding of removal). As Lopez-Ruiz does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his claimed social group of Mexicans returning from the United States is not cognizable, he has waived any argument based thereon. Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259–60. Thus, LopezRuiz’s withholding of removal claim fails. 2 In his petition for review, Lopez-Ruiz also does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. Thus, he has waived the issue. Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259–60. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
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.
