Opinion
20-71231
11-17-2022
SAUL CAMACHO CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 14, 2022 San Jose, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A205-908-204
Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Petitioner Saul Camacho Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
1. Camacho Camacho first argues that the immigration court had no power to commence removal proceedings against him because he was initially served with a notice to appear that lacked the time and place of the hearing and the address of the immigration court. Because Camacho Camacho did not raise this argument to the BIA, he failed to exhaust the argument and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022).
2. Camacho Camacho next argues that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to analyze his claim for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, Camacho Camacho had to show that he would be persecuted in Mexico and that his membership in a particular social group would be "a reason" for that persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). Camacho Camacho claimed that he would be targeted because he is a member of two social groups: "male Camacho Camacho family members" and individuals "perceived as having money." We are satisfied that the agency considered and rejected these claims. The BIA and IJ need not "write an exegesis on every contention." Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA's ruling that Camacho Camacho failed to establish any nexus between his family membership and the harm that he fears if returned to Mexico, and the BIA permissibly ruled that the proposed social group of people "perceived as having money" is not cognizable.
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
[*] 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).