JOSE OZUNA ALEMAN V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 15-73185 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE OZUNA ALEMAN, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73185 Agency No. A088-712-470 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Jose Ozuna Aleman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our * 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). jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Ozuna Aleman does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was time-barred and that no exception to the time limitation applied, and the dispositive determination that he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground in order to establish eligibility for withholding 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). To the extent Ozuna Aleman raises a political opinion claim and a particular social group claim for the first time in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions 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 issues or claims not presented below). Thus, Ozuna Aleman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ozuna Aleman failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 15-73185
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.
