Vicente Moz-Henriquez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE MOZ-HENRIQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72147
Agency No. A209-225-206
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Moz-Henriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s 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
OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72147
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de
novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing
statutes and regulations. Id. We review de novo claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Moz-
Henriquez failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See
Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s
determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because
of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA
did not err in concluding that Moz-Henriquez did not establish membership in a
cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he
applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a
common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially
distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N.
Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Moz-Henriquez’s asylum and withholding of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72147
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Moz-Henriquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Moz-Henriquez’s contention that the agency violated his right to a full and
fair hearing fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error to prevail on a due process claim).
Moz-Henriquez does not challenge the agency’s denial of his request to
terminate based on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. –––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201
L.Ed.2d 433 (2018). See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th
Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --