FRANCO MARIN BONILLA, AKA Jose U. Marraquin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCO MARIN BONILLA, AKA Jose U.
Marraquin,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71082
Agency No. A095-010-566
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Franco Marin Bonilla, 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 applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
NOV 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71082
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Marin Bonilla established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application.
See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court
retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-
year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and extraordinary
circumstances); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2022)
(ignorance of asylum filing requirements is not an “extraordinary circumstance”).
Thus, Marin Bonilla’s asylum claim fails.
As to withholding of removal, because Marin Bonilla does not challenge the
agency’s determination that he failed to establish membership in a cognizable
particular social group, this issue is waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Marin Bonilla failed to establish he was or would be persecuted
on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71082
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). To the extent Marin Bonilla fears harm based on his “gang
appearance” and tattoos, we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue because he
failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency). Thus, Marin Bonilla’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Marin Bonilla failed to show it is more likely than not 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --