CARLOS MONTEAGUDO-VILLEGAS V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-73516 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED NOV 18 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS RENE MONTEAGUDOVILLEGAS, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-73516 Agency No. A202-184-573 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Carlos Rene Monteagudo-Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 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. As to the particular social groups raised to the agency, Monteagudo-Villegas does not challenge the agency’s determination that they are not cognizable. 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). As to the particular social groups that Monteagudo-Villegas raises for the first time in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Monteagudo-Villegas’s asylum claim fails. In his opening brief, Monteagudo-Villegas does not raise any argument challenging, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that he waived his withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Monteagudo-Villegas 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 20-73516 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 20-73516
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.
