Adrian Bautista Manjarrez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN BAUTISTA MANJARREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1941
Agency No. A200-626-726
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, CALLAHAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Adrian Bautista Manjarrez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or
Board). The Board dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of a decision of the Immigration
FILED
MAR 8 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 finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 3 --

Judge, who denied his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA also
denied Petitioner’s motion to remand for him to apply for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to
remand because Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“We review the Board’s denial of motions to remand for abuse of
discretion.”); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (“A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the [petitioner] establishes
a prima facie case of eligibility for the underlying relief sought.”). As the Board
recognized, we have held that the proposed social group of “‘returning Mexicans
from the United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group.”2
Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1151–52.
1 Petitioner has not addressed the denial of cancellation of removal or
the denial of his motion to reopen as to CAT protection, and thus has waived those
issues. See Carro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013)
(stating that the petitioner “did not contest the denial of cancellation of removal in
her opening brief, so the issue is waived”); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating “An issue referred to in the appellant’s statement
of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief is deemed waived.”)
2 Petitioner challenges only the social group finding.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

The petition for review is DENIED.3
3 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate
issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
3

-- 3 of 3 --