FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FEB 13 2024

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS NORBERTO MARISCAL No. 22-1713

GONZALEZ,

Agency No. Petitioner, A200-244-317

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 9, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Luis Norberto Mariscal Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his

appeal from the denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

* 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). the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims. Before the BIA, the Petitioner

did not challenge the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for

asylum as untimely, and he does not challenge it here.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial of withholding because

Petitioner’s proposed particular social group—“individuals whose culture and way

of life are viewed as American”—as not cognizable. Petitioner does not challenge

that determination and, instead, raises a new social group, family, for our

consideration. This contention was not raised before the BIA and is not exhausted.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring petitioners to exhaust all administrative

remedies).

In denying CAT protection, the BIA explained that while there are problems

with cartels in Mexico, Petitioner did not show that it was more likely than not that

the government would torture him or acquiesce to his torture. Petitioner raises no

meaningful challenge to this conclusion either.

Because Petitioner has not raised any substantive arguments in support of his

conclusory contention that he is entitled to relief, the petition for review must be

denied. See, e.g., Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919

(9th Cir. 2001) (we do not consider “issues which are not specifically and

distinctly argued and raised in a party’s opening brief”).

2

PETITION DENIED.

3