Jaime Napoleon Giron-Ramirez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME NAPOLEON GIRON-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 09-72637
09-73486
Agency No. A095-761-206
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jaime Napoleon Giron-Ramirez, a
native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

09-72637 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and of the BIA’s order
denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 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 determination
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.
In his opening brief, Giron-Ramirez fails to challenge the agency’s
dispositive determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are
not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
We reject Giron-Ramirez’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of
removal based on his membership in a particular social group. See Sanchez-
Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576-77 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Velasco-
Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that
material witnesses for the government do not constitute a particular social group);
Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that a

-- 2 of 4 --

09-72637 3
government informant is not a member of a particular social group). Accordingly,
because Giron-Ramirez failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of
a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.
See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Giron-Ramirez
failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to
El Salvador, and therefore we deny the petition as to Giron-Ramirez’s CAT claim.
See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Giron-Ramirez’s motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining Giron-Ramirez did not show prima facie eligibility
for the relief sought. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (the BIA may deny a motion
to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief
sought).

-- 3 of 4 --

09-72637 4
Finally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Giron-Ramirez’s
second request for an extension of time to file his brief on appeal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.3(c)(1) (BIA has discretion to extend time period for filing brief on appeal).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --