Opinion
18-72266
10-11-2022
ALEX SALVADOR BARAHONA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 6, 2022 [**] Seattle, Washington
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A094-061-910
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and W. FLETCHER and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Alex Salvador Barahona ("Petitioner"), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 1996. He was served with a Notice to Appear in December 2010. Petitioner conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture ("CAT"). The Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied asylum as time-barred, denied withholding for failure to designate a particular social group or other protected ground, and denied CAT relief for failure to demonstrate "by any standard" that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. Petitioner appealed to the BIA the denial of withholding of removal. The BIA held that appeals on other issues were waived. Petitioner identified two particular social groups. But because he had identified neither of the two social groups before the IJ, the BIA declined to consider them.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review denials of withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). The BIA's legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Guan v. Barr, 925 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition.
The BIA may decline to hear arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Petitioner argues that BIA precedent had not made clear that Petitioner must articulate all potential social groups before the IJ until after he had already presented his case to the IJ. The BIA has long made clear that an applicant must clearly indicate "the exact delineation of any particular social group(s) to which [they] claim[] to belong." See, e.g., Matter of A-T-, 25 I. &N. Dec. 4, 10 (BIA 2009) (citing Matter of A-T-, 24 I. &N. Dec. 617, 623 n.7 (BIA 2008)). It has also long made clear that it will not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Matter of Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. &N. Dec. 567, 570 n.2 (BIA 1996). Therefore, the BIA did not err in declining to consider Petitioner's proposed social groups.
Petitioner has waived all other challenges to the BIA's decision before this Court.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).