NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR HERNANDEZ-BALDERAS, No. 15-71618 AKA Victor Hernandez, Agency No. A201-284-773 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Victor Hernandez-Balderas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his request to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020), and we review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Hernandez-Balderas does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish that the proposed particular social group defined as “Mexican nationals returning from the United States” is legally cognizable. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). To the extent Hernandez-Balderas raises a new family-based particular social group, we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue because he failed to raise this social group to 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). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hernandez- Balderas failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground, including an actual or imputed political opinion. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random 2 15-71618 violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Hernandez-Balderas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in declining to remand for further consideration in light of Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand for consideration of humanitarian asylum, where Hernandez-Balderas is ineligible for humanitarian asylum because he did not establish that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground. See Belishta v. Ashcroft, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals