NOE RAMOS-FELIPE V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-72550 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOE RAMOS-FELIPE, AKA Noe Ramos, AKA Noe Ramos-Deleon, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72550 Agency No. A205-719-758 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Noe Ramos-Felipe, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Ramos-Felipe does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that he failed to challenge the IJ’s finding that his asylum application was time barred. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramos-Felipe failed to establish that the harm from gangs he experienced and fears in Guatemala was or will be on account of a political opinion. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a political opinion claim failed where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). In addition, the agency did not err in finding that Ramos-Felipe failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 2 16-72550 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barrios, 581 F.3d at 854-55 (men in Guatemala resisting gang violence is not a particular social group). We lack jurisdiction to consider the new protected grounds and proposed social groups raised in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Ramos-Felipe’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ramos-Felipe 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The record does not support Ramos-Felipe’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider evidence, ignored arguments, 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). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Ramos-Felipe’s remaining 3 16-72550 contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 4 16-72550
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.
