Jorge Bustillo Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland, 19-72352

Petitioner Jorge Bustillo Gonzalez, a Honduran national proceeding pro se, appealed the BIA’s dismissal of an IJ’s denial of withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, and cancellation of removal.
He advanced claims based on membership in proposed particular social groups (including "deportees") and alleged fear of torture and hardship to a qualifying relative.
The BIA and IJ found his proposed particular social groups were not cognizable because they lacked society-specific evidence of social distinction; the BIA also denied CAT relief and denied cancellation of removal as a discretionary matter.
In his opening brief to the Ninth Circuit, Gonzalez did not challenge the agency’s finding that the "deportees" group was not cognizable and raised an imputed political-opinion claim for the first time on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence and legal cognizability de novo where appropriate, and concluded Gonzalez waived or failed to adequately brief several claims; it also identified jurisdictional limits over discretionary cancellation findings.
The court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part; a temporary stay of removal remains until issuance of the mandate, but the stay motion was otherwise denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner belongs to a cognizable particular social group for withholding of removal	Gonzalez asserted membership in several proposed particular social groups (including deportees and other groups)	Agency: groups not socially distinct or otherwise cognizable; insufficient society-specific evidence	Denied: substantial evidence supports agency; petitioner waived challenge to deportees group; withholding fails
Whether petitioner is entitled to CAT relief	Gonzalez claimed fear of torture if returned	Agency denied CAT relief; petitioner did not brief/challenge that denial on appeal	Denied: argument not raised on appeal and thus abandoned
Whether cancellation of removal should be granted based on exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative	Gonzalez argued hardship to qualifying relative warrants cancellation	Agency decision is discretionary and petitioner failed to raise a colorable legal/constitutional claim	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over discretionary hardship determinations
Whether the BIA improperly used summary-affirmance procedures and whether stay of removal should be granted	Gonzalez contended the BIA used summary affirmance and sought a stay	Government/BIA: final order was not a summary affirmance; stay unnecessary beyond temporary measure	Challenge rejected: BIA order was not summary affirmance; temporary stay maintained until mandate, other stay relief denied

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2020) (review standards for social distinction and particular social group analysis)
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements required to establish membership in a particular social group)
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not presented to the agency)
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned)
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional limits on review of discretionary cancellation of removal determinations)