NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE SANTILLANA-HERNANDEZ, No. 14-72274 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-282-455 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Jose Santillana-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. 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 interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in finding that Santillana-Hernandez 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 Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that young men from Guatemala who resist gang recruitment is not a particular social group). Thus, Santillana-Hernandez’s asylum claim fails. We lack jurisdiction to consider Santillana-Hernandez’s contention regarding his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture because he 2 14-72274 failed to raise it 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-72274 14-72274 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Santillana-Hernandez v. William Barr 18 June 2019 Agency Unpublished 8fbdf718772db3809ac875a9e8c8608b8a726472
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals