NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL ENRIQUE BARRIENTOS No. 15-73459 COLOCHO, Agency No. A205-310-463 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 8, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ,*** District Judge. Raul Enrique Barrientos Colocho, a native and citizen of El Salvador, * 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). *** The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and dismiss in part and deny in part the petition. 1. We lack jurisdiction to review Barrientos Colocho’s asylum claim because he failed to exhaust his argument before the BIA. “Asylum-seekers have one year from the time of their entry into the United States to file an application for asylum.” Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ found that Barrientos Colocho’s asylum application was untimely because he waited approximately five years after he entered the United States to apply for asylum, and that no exceptions applied. In his appeal to the BIA, Barrientos Colocho did not challenge the IJ’s finding that his asylum application was untimely. Therefore, Barrientos Colocho failed to exhaust this claim, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. Barrientos Colocho argued before the BIA that he was a member of the following social group: “returning El Salvadoran from the United States perceived to pose a 2 threat of filing criminal allegations for past crimes.” Barrientos Colocho testified before the IJ that while he was in El Salvador, he witnessed an individual, who had been shot and wounded by a gang, come into his workplace and he was warned by one of the gang members over the telephone not to tell anyone about the incident. He also testified that while he was in the United States, he had been extorted long distance for $250 to prevent harm to family members still living in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Barrientos Colocho failed to establish a nexus between the incidents he described …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals