Lino Cabrera Mendoza v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 2 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LINO REYNALDO CABRERA No. 19-73308 MENDOZA, AKA Alberto Cortez Valencia, Agency No. A205-311-124 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 29, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District Judge. Lino Reynaldo Cabrera Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the * 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). *** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.  Page 2 of 3 denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. 1. Cabrera Mendoza waived review of the denial of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal by failing to address the agency’s dispositive reasons for denying relief. With respect to asylum, Cabrera Mendoza did not challenge the agency’s finding that he was subject to the one-year time bar and had not demonstrated changed country conditions to overcome the bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). With respect to withholding of removal, Cabrera Mendoza did not challenge the agency’s finding that his proposed particular social group of “Mexicans returning from the United States, who are parents of minor United States children, perceived to have money, and which the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect from drug cartels and/or associated criminal elements” is not cognizable. He also failed to challenge the agency’s adverse credibility finding. We lack jurisdiction to consider the new proposed particular social group that Cabrera Mendoza asserts before us—“owner of small business operated by young woman”—because he failed to raise it before the agency, and it is therefore unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). 2. Cabrera Mendoza failed to challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that he is ineligible for protection under CAT because he did not demonstrate that  Page 3 of 3 the Mexican government would participate or acquiesce in any future torture. Any challenge to the merits of the agency’s CAT ruling is thus waived. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.