FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENYS HONCHAROV, AKA Denys No. 15-71554 Vitalyevich Honcharov, Petitioner, Agency No. A099-235-092 v. OPINION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 16, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed May 29, 2019 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion 2 HONCHAROV V. BARR SUMMARY * Immigration Denying a petition for review, the panel held that the Board of Immigration Appeals does not per se err when it concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained. The panel held that the rationales behind waiver and forfeiture apply in the context of removal proceedings in the Executive Office of Immigration Review, and that the Board may apply a procedural default rule to arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Applying that holding, the panel concluded that the Board did not err when it declined to consider petitioner’s proposed particular social groups that were raised for the first time on appeal. Because it did not affect the resolution of the present petition, the panel noted that it would leave it for another case to decide what standard of review applies to the Board’s decision to invoke such default, and what showing a non- citizen must make to the immigration judge to preserve an argument for Board review. The panel addressed petitioner’s other arguments in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. HONCHAROV V. BARR 3 COUNSEL James Todd Bennett (argued), El Cerrito, California, for Petitioner. John Williams (argued) and Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION PER CURIAM: In this opinion we approve the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)’s practice of refusing to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. We address the petitioner’s other arguments in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. Denys Honcharov is a Ukrainian national who was admitted to the United States in 2004 on a five-month visa. After the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings in 2009, Honcharov conceded removability but requested asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. An immigration judge (IJ) held a hearing on Honcharov’s claims and asked Honcharov what social group he was a member of that led to his persecution. Honcharov responded “Ukrainian businessmen” and “witness victim to crime.” The IJ denied all relief after determining that these groups did not qualify as “particular social groups” within the meaning of the asylum statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 4 HONCHAROV V. BARR Honcharov appealed to the Board, now claiming that he was a member of three new particular social groups: “Ukrainian businesses targeted for and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals