Luis Fernando Erazo-Guzman v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS FERNANDO ERAZO-GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70094
Agency No. A205-317-136
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Fernando Erazo-Guzman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70094
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Erazo-Guzman does not challenge the dispositive
grounds relied on by the agency in denying his claims for asylum and withholding
of removal. 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). To the
extent that Erazo-Guzman proposes a new particular social group in his opening
brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to
the agency). Thus, Erazo-Guzman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Erazo-Guzman’s contentions as to the
merits of his CAT claim, the IJ’s evaluation of the evidence, and the IJ’s denial of
a continuance. See id.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --