United States v. 2020-05-12 | 17-71997 | LUIS ALVAREZ GONZALES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS MANUEL ALVAREZ GONZALES,
AKA Luis Manuel Alvarez Gonzalez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-71997

Agency No. A201-179-244

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Luis Manuel Alvarez Gonzales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*
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 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-71997
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Alvarez Gonzales does not challenge the dispositive
grounds relied on by the agency in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
Alvarez Gonzales’s contention that the agency’s failure to take
administrative notice of country conditions reports violated his due process rights
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim); Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 427 (9th Cir. 1995)
(BIA is “not required independently to take administrative notice of [country]
conditions” where petitioner “provided no such information”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.