Walter Irving Portillo Acuna; N. I. P. S.; C. I. S. P. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER IRVING PORTILLO
ACUNA; N. I. P. S.; C. I. S. P.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-612
Agency Nos.
A209-823-663
A209-823-665
A209-823-664
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2023**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Walter Portillo Acuna, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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
JUL 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-612
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the BIA’s legal
conclusions. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018). Factual
findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. To the extent that the BIA
incorporated the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d
1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Because the parties are familiar with the factual
background, we need not recount it here. We deny the petition.
The BIA did not err in denying Portillo Acuna asylum. Substantial
evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Portillo Acuna had not established
past persecution on account of a cognizable particular social group of which he
is a member. Even assuming that “family ties,” the sole social group Portillo
Acuna fully exhausted before the agency and briefed to this court, is cognizable,
Portillo Acuna failed to plead facts supporting that his family ties were a reason
for his persecution. See Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 882 (9th
Cir. 2021) (“Membership in the group must be ‘a reason’ for [the] feared
mistreatment.” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C))).
The BIA also did not err in denying Portillo Acuna withholding of removal.
For the same reason as above, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s
determination that Portillo Acuna is ineligible for withholding of removal
1 We refer only to lead petitioner Portillo Acuna in this disposition as his
asylum application applies to his partner and their child as derivative
beneficiaries. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(a)(1).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-612
because he failed to establish that he fears harm in El Salvador based on a
protected ground. Moreover, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s
conclusion that Portillo Acuna failed to rebut the presumption of reasonable
relocation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3).
Finally, by failing to discuss the agency’s denying him CAT protection,
Portillo Acuna waived any challenge to the agency’s denial. See 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.”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --