Ricardo Macias-Solis v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO MACIAS-SOLIS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-368
Agency No.
A213-212-440
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.***
Ricardo Macias-Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
* 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).
*** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for
the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). “Where, as here, the BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without
opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as if it
were the BIA’s decision.” Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.
2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the agency’s
factual determinations for substantial evidence, meaning that we may reverse
only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Umana-Escobar v.
Garland, 62 F.4th 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2023). As the parties are familiar with
the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review.
1. The IJ determined that Macias-Solis was statutorily barred from
asylum because he did not apply until almost fifteen years after he entered the
United States, and he failed to show that he qualified for an exception to the
one-year deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2).
In his opening brief, Macias-Solis does not address, and therefore has waived,
any challenge to this aspect of the IJ’s decision. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that a petitioner waived issues
not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief).
2. Regarding withholding of removal, Macias-Solis alleged persecution
primarily based on three events: (1) the 1994 murder of his cousin by unknown
individuals; (2) the 2010 murder of his uncle, who had formerly worked for the
district attorney’s office, by a cartel; and (3) a 2004 phone call to his mother
from an unknown individual who threatened to kidnap Macias-Solis. Although

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Macias-Solis did not identify a particular social group, the IJ construed his
claim as alleging fear of harm based on either family membership or resistance
to cartel recruitment.
The IJ determined that Macias-Solis did not establish past harm rising to
the level of persecution, a ruling that Macias-Solis has waived by failing to
address in his opening brief. See id. In addition, the IJ’s determination that
Macias-Solis failed to show harm on account of a protected ground is supported
by substantial evidence. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th
Cir. 2021) (holding that the petitioner failed to establish a nexus with his
proposed particular social group of his family because “the record does not
contain any evidence that his uncle’s membership in the Santos-Ponce family
was . . . a reason that the gang killed him”).
3. Finally, under the CAT, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
determination that Macias-Solis failed to demonstrate that he will more likely
than not be tortured if returned to Mexico. See id. at 891.
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --