Martin Juan-Juan v. Merrick Garland

facts necessary to decide the petition. 2 young men are not “socially distinct” or “perceived as a group in Guatemalan

society.” Similarly, with respect to the CAT claim, Juan-Juan does not present any

argument that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s ruling that he failed to show

“acquiescence,” i.e., that someone acting in an official capacity would be aware of

torture and not intervene. Juan-Juan’s failure to challenge the BIA’s reasoning is a

sufficient ground to deny his petition. See Martin v. City of Oceanside, 360 F.3d

1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the plaintiff “forfeited review” of an

issue because he did not argue it in his opening brief).

2. Juan-Juan’s arguments for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

protection also fail on the merits.

With regard to his withholding of removal and asylum claims, we see no

error in the BIA’s conclusion that Juan-Juan did not establish a nexus to or

membership in a protected group. Juan-Juan testified that he was targeted solely

because a gang wished to recruit him. However, asylum and withholding of

removal are “not available to victims of indiscriminate violence, unless they are

singled out on…