United States v. 2020-03-09 | 14-74023 | FELIPE MUNOZ-ASCENCIO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE NERY MUNOZ-ASCENCIO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-74023

Agency No. A070-815-929

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Felipe Nery Munoz-Ascencio, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,

*
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

MAR 9 2020

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

2
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Munoz-
Ascencio failed to establish that the threats from guerrillas rose to the level of
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing
alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only
when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual ‘suffering or
harm.’” (citation omitted)). In his opening brief, Munoz-Ascencio fails to
challenge the agency’s determination that the harm he fears in El Salvador would
be on account of a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Thus, Munoz-Ascencio’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Munoz-Ascencio’s contentions regarding an
imputed political opinion and a newly proposed particular social group of “former
El Salvadorian soldiers threatened by Salvadorian leftists” because they were not
raised to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.