Jose Daniel Amaya Reyes v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DANIEL AMAYA REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-887
Agency No.
A205-875-882
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Daniel Amaya Reyes, 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 decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-887
§ 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social
group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Amaya Reyes failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842
F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular
social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of
members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with
particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Conde
Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (proposed particular social group not cognizable
given absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, Amaya
Reyes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We do not reach Amaya Reyes’s contention as to whether his harm rose
to the level of persecution because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground.
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)).
Because Amaya Reyes does not challenge the agency’s denial of his

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-887
application for CAT protection, we do not reach it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --