Jose Pineda-Ascencio v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE PINEDA-ASCENCIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-176
Agency No.
A095-044-964
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Pineda-Ascencio, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-176
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for
review.
Because Pineda-Ascencio does not contest the BIA’s determination that he
waived challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determinations that he failed to establish
past persecution, a probability of future persecution, nexus to a protected ground,
and that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect him, we do
not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013). We do not address Pineda-Ascencio’s contentions as to his credibility and
the cognizability of his proposed particular social group because the BIA did not
deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,
829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Thus, Pineda-Ascencio’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Because Pineda-Ascencio does not contest the BIA’s determination that he
waived challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that he failed to show he will
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
El Salvador, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80;
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be
‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-176
official or other person acting in an official capacity’”) (internal citation
omitted).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --