Cortez Coreas v. Garland

discussion does he contest the BIA’s nexus analysis or argue why he was persecuted

for being part of his proposed social group (El Salvadorans who oppose gang

violence). Rather, he focuses only on why that group is cognizable. Because this

Court “review[s] only issues [that] are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s

opening brief” and does “not manufacture arguments for an appellant,” Greenwood

v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994), Mr. Cortez-Coreas has

therefore waived any challenge to the BIA’s affirmance and forfeited his petition for

review on this count, see Riera-Riera, 841 F.3d at 1081.

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of CAT relief.

Here, the record evidence, including Mr. Cortez-Coreas’s testimony that he does not

believe he would be tortured by the government, supports our conclusion that a

reasonable factfinder could conclude that Mr. Cortez-Coreas did not meet his burden

of showing that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured in El Salvador

with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755

F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED.

3