Maximiliano Cruz Ruiz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXIMILIANO CRUZ RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71438
Agency No. A076-612-203
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Maximiliano Cruz Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his request for
termination and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying his application for 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).
FILED
MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71438
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Cruz Ruiz does not challenge the bases for the agency’s
adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). He also does not challenge the agency’s determination
that the particular social group he proposed was not cognizable. See id. Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where Cruz
Ruiz’s claim is based on the same testimony found not credible and he points to no
other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than
not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government
if returned to Mexico. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
Cruz Ruiz does not raise any argument challenging the BIA’s conclusion
that termination of proceedings was unwarranted. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at
1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --