Cecilio Filemon Dzul-Pool v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECILIO FILEMON DZUL-POOL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1250
Agency No. A200-247-956
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Cecilio Filemon Dzul-Pool, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of
* 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
APR 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 21-1250, 04/13/2023, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, this court reviews the IJ’s
decision as if it were the decision of the BIA. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037,
1039 (9th Cir. 2005). “We review purely legal questions de novo, and the agency’s
factual findings for substantial evidence.” Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788,
792 (9th Cir. 2022).
Petitioner waived review of the agency’s denial of asylum relief because he
did not meaningfully challenge the issues in his opening brief. See Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Petitioner was
ineligible for withholding of removal because he was unable to establish a clear
probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to the
proposed country of removal. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 429, 440
(1987). In addition, neither of Petitioner’s proposed particular social groups is
cognizable. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that the proposed social group of Mexicans returning from the United
States was not a cognizable social group because it was too broad); Ramirez-
Case: 21-1250, 04/13/2023, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that a group of
“imputed wealthy Americans” was not sufficiently particular).
Substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
was not entitled to CAT relief. Petitioner’s testimony and evidence of the
conditions in Mexico did not establish that it was more likely than not that
Petitioner would suffer torture in the future or that such abuse would be inflicted
upon him with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. See Delgado-Ortiz,
600 F.3d at 1152 (Petitioner’s “generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico is not particular to Petitioner[] and is insufficient to meet [the CAT]
standard.”).
PETITION DENIED.
Case: 21-1250, 04/13/2023, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --