United States v. 2020-04-10 | 16-73679 | CARLOS CACERES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS AGUSTIN CACERES, AKA
Juan Perez Hernandez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-73679

Agency No. A200-880-299

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Agustin Caceres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due

*
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).
FILED

APR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-73679
process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Caceres does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determinations that he
failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground, including his
political opinion, or that his social group based on his status as a returnee was 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).
To the extent Caceres raises a social group based on his relationship to his brother,
we lack jurisdiction to consider it. 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, Caceres’ withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Caceres’ contentions regarding
credibility. 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).
Caceres’ contentions that the agency violated his due process rights by
failing to consider his asylum application fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We do not

3 16-73679
address Caceres’ contentions regarding his eligibility for asylum. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the
grounds relied on by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.