Sergio Manuel Marroquin- Osorio v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO MANUEL MARROQUIN-
OSORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71004
Agency No. A206-480-070
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Manuel Marroquin-Osorio, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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).
FILED
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-71004
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Because Marroquin-Osorio does not challenge the agency’s adverse
credibility determination, this issue is forfeited. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in
this case, Marroquin-Osorio’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not address Marroquin-Osorio’s contentions as to the merits of his
asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny relief on
these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied
upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Marroquin-Osorio also does not challenge, and therefore forfeits, the
agency’s denial of CAT protection. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --