Luis Norberto Mariscal Gonzalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS NORBERTO MARISCAL
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1713
Agency No.
A200-244-317
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Luis Norberto Mariscal Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal from the denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
FILED
FEB 13 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims. Before the BIA, the Petitioner
did not challenge the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for
asylum as untimely, and he does not challenge it here.
The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial of withholding because
Petitioner’s proposed particular social group—“individuals whose culture and way
of life are viewed as American”—as not cognizable. Petitioner does not challenge
that determination and, instead, raises a new social group, family, for our
consideration. This contention was not raised before the BIA and is not exhausted.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring petitioners to exhaust all administrative
remedies).
In denying CAT protection, the BIA explained that while there are problems
with cartels in Mexico, Petitioner did not show that it was more likely than not that
the government would torture him or acquiesce to his torture. Petitioner raises no
meaningful challenge to this conclusion either.
Because Petitioner has not raised any substantive arguments in support of his
conclusory contention that he is entitled to relief, the petition for review must be
denied. See, e.g., Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919
(9th Cir. 2001) (we do not consider “issues which are not specifically and
distinctly argued and raised in a party’s opening brief”).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --