NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOMINGO MIRANDA-LOPEZ, No. 15-72590

Petitioner, Agency No. A200-807-666 v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Domingo Miranda-Lopez, 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 withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

*

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). 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.

In Miranda-Lopez’s opening brief he does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive conclusion that he failed to establish either of his proposed particular social groups were cognizable. 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 Miranda-Lopez is not a member of a particular social group analogous to the group analyzed in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the new particular social groups Miranda- Lopez raises in his opening brief because he failed to raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 15-72590