NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL TOMAS PEREZ RODRIGUEZ, No. 16-71325 Petitioner, Agency No. A204-506-845 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. Petitioner Angel Tomas Perez Rodriguez (“Perez”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) decision denying his * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. When the BIA agrees with the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision and “adds its own reasoning,” we review the BIA’s decision and “those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2019). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1028. 1. Asylum. In reviewing Perez’s asylum application, the IJ determined that it was not filed within the one-year deadline to apply for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The IJ also found that Perez did not establish an exception to the deadline. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). On appeal, Perez did not challenge that finding and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s timeliness finding. Similarly, the petition for review does not challenge the agency’s timeliness determination. Instead, Perez seeks to challenge the IJ and BIA’s alternative reasons for denying his asylum application on the merits. Because Perez failed to challenge the untimeliness determination on appeal to the BIA and in his petition to this court, he has failed to exhaust and has waived appellate review of the issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion); Corro Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (waiver). Thus, we dismiss the petition with respect to Perez’s application for asylum without considering the agency’s alternative reasons for denying that relief. The 2 one-year deadline, however, does not apply to withholding or CAT relief. Shire v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2004). 2. Withholding of removal. Perez’s claim for withholding of removal is based on his family as a “particular social group” (“PSG”) and, in particular, his relationship to his father. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Perez’s family was a cognizable PSG but that he failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of that protected ground. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals