GILBERTO PLEITEZ PLEITEZ, AKA Gilberto Plietez Plietez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO PLEITEZ PLEITEZ, AKA
Gilberto Plietez Plietez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72321
Agency No. A208-152-764
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Pleitez Pleitez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72321
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
remand. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Arellano Hernandez
v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
Pleitez Pleitez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was
or would be on account of a protected ground, including his religious beliefs. See
Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a
particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution
was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a petitioner’s “desire to be free from
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Pleitez Pleitez’s motion to
remand where he did not delineate the proposed particular social group for which
he contends the IJ failed to seek clarification. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019,
1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicants “who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to
pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened,
the new evidence would likely change the result in the case” (quoting Matter of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72321
Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))); see also Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-
B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (noting that “it is an applicant’s burden to
specifically delineate [his] proposed social group”).
Pleitez Pleitez’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his request to remand
violated his right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Thus, Pleitez Pleitez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In his opening brief, Pleitez Pleitez does not challenge the determination that
he did not demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief, and thus he has waived the claim.
See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to
contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --