Jose Angel De Jesus-Orellana v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANGEL DE JESUS-ORELLANA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72639
Agency No. A202-127-444
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Angel De Jesus-Orellana, 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 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
NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-72639
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.
In his opening brief, De Jesus-Orellana does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that he failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported
by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, De Jesus-Orellana’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
As to De Jesus-Orellana’s CAT claim, he also does not raise, and therefore
waives, any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that he made no
argument challenging the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish the requisite state
action for relief under CAT. See id.
De Jesus-Orellana’s contentions that the BIA violated his right to due
process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --