FRANCISCO COZ PAXTOR V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-73454 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO MAURICIO COZ PAXTOR, AKA Juan Coschavez, AKA Mauricio Coz, No. 18-73454 Agency No. A206-408-493 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Francisco Coz Paxtor petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge (“IJ”) * 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). decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Coz Paxtor waived his claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief by failing to specifically and distinctly argue those claims in the opening brief. See Austin v. Univ. of Or., 925 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Generally, an issue is waived when the appellant does not specifically and distinctly argue the issue in his or her opening brief.” (citation omitted)). Coz Paxtor waived review of his asylum claim by failing to support his arguments with citations to any record evidence. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 28(a)(8) (requiring appellant’s opening brief to contain “citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying rule to opening brief in support of petition for review). PETITION DENIED. 2

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.