Opinion
16-72467
08-23-2022
BORIS MAURICIO SUTUJ, AKA Walter Humberto Chen, AKA Boris Sutuj, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-718-080
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Boris Mauricio Sutuj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in its determination that Sutuj waived any challenge to the IJ's determination that there had been a fundamental change in circumstances in Guatemala, see Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA's waiver determination), so we lack jurisdiction to consider his merits-based contentions, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sutuj's contention that he established a clear probability of future persecution because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See id. at 677-78.
As to CAT protection, the BIA did not err in its determination that Sutuj waived the claim on appeal, see Alanniz, 924 F.3d at 1068-69, so we lack jurisdiction to consider his merits-based contentions, see Barron, 358 F.3d at 67778.
Sutuj's opposed motion to remand this petition to the BIA (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).