NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL MARTINEZ-DOMINGUEZ, No. 14-72558 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-878-185 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Angel Martinez-Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de * 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). novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Dominguez’s contention regarding his “imputed American nationality” because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). The record does not compel the conclusion that Martinez-Dominguez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). We reject the contention that the agency failed to consider Martinez-Dominguez’s evidence of alleged changed circumstances. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (The agency “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Martinez-Dominguez’s asylum claim fails. Martinez-Dominguez does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed 2 14-72558 to establish past persecution. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). As for Martinez-Dominguez’s claim of a fear of future persecution, the agency did not err in finding that Martinez-Dominguez failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “returning Mexicans from the United States” is not a cognizable social group). Thus, Martinez-Dominguez’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals