SERGIO MARROQUIN-OSORIO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-71004 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 23 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO MANUEL MARROQUINOSORIO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-71004 Agency No. A206-480-070 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Sergio Manuel Marroquin-Osorio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Because Marroquin-Osorio does not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination, this issue is forfeited. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Marroquin-Osorio’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not address Marroquin-Osorio’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Marroquin-Osorio also does not challenge, and therefore forfeits, the agency’s denial of CAT protection. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 20-71004

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.