Oscar Leonides Estrada Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR LEONIDES ESTRADA
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-245
Agency No.
A088-710-881
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 24, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District
Judge.
Oscar Leonides Estrada Rodriguez (Estrada), a native and citizen of El
* 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 Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-245
Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
decision dismissing his appeal of the denial of withholding of removal. He also
asserts in his opening brief that he is entitled to protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and we
review questions of law de novo. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th
1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and
deny the petition.
1. We deny Estrada’s petition as to his asylum claim because he failed to
challenge in his opening brief the agency finding that his asylum application was
untimely. See Alcaraz v. I.N.S., 384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We will not
ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued
in [the petitioner’s] opening brief. . . .”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal.
“A petitioner is entitled to withholding of removal if he can establish a clear
probability that his life or freedom would be threatened upon return because of a
protected category. . . .” Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 658 (9th Cir. 2023), as
amended (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Estrada contends that
he will be persecuted on account of his membership in the particular social groups

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-245
of: (1) “individuals who refuse to join gangs,” and (2) “members of groups who
express opposition to gangs and their violent conduct.” But, as the BIA
determined, Estrada’s proposed social groups are not “socially distinct.” See
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (requiring a
petitioner to show “social distinction” by demonstrating that the relevant society
recognizes the proposed social group) (citation and alteration omitted).
Although Estrada reported a gang shooting to the police, there is no evidence
that he ever openly testified against gang members. See id. at 1242–43 (concluding
that “persons who report the criminal activity of gangs to the police” are not
socially distinct); see also Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092–93
(9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (recognizing the “social visibility” of Salvadorans who
publicly testified against gang members). Accordingly, substantial evidence
supports the denial of withholding of removal. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at
1243–44 (denying a petition for review when the petitioner “failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group”).1
3. We reject Estrada’s argument that he “warrants protection under
CAT.” Estrada declined to apply for CAT relief. The Immigration Judge (IJ)
1 Because Estrada’s failure to establish membership in a cognizable particular
social group is dispositive of his claim for withholding of removal, we decline to
address the remaining arguments asserted by the parties. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that courts are not required to reach
issues that are “unnecessary to the results they reach”) (citation omitted).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-245
confirmed that Estrada was not seeking CAT protection. See Taggar v. Holder,
736 F.3d 886, 889–90 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming the BIA’s conclusion that the
petitioner abandoned his CAT claim by failing to file an application for relief).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --