Walter Landaverde Perez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER LANDAVERDE PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72389
Agency No. A076-219-621
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Walter Landaverde Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72389
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
In denying his withholding of removal claim, the BIA found that Perez
failed to establish that Salvadoran returnees with perceived wealth was a
cognizable social group. The BIA further found that, even if cognizable, Perez
failed to show a nexus between the harm he feared and a protected ground. In his
opening brief, Perez contends for the first time that he established eligibility for
withholding of removal based on a particular social group of returning Salvadorans
accompanied by his or her U.S. citizen children. We lack jurisdiction to consider
this. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Apart from this
argument, Perez does not challenge the BIA’s grounds for denying withholding of
removal. Thus, we deny the petition as to Perez’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Perez’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72389
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --