NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS MIGUEL HERNANDEZ- No. 20-70867 VELAZQUEZ, AKA Enrique Nava- Sanchez, Agency No. A088-711-170 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Luis Miguel Hernandez-Velazquez, 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 applications for * 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). cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Hernandez-Velazquez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). The petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930. The record does not compel the conclusion that Hernandez-Velazquez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Hernandez-Velazquez’s asylum claim fails. The agency did not err in concluding that Hernandez-Velazquez did not 2 20-70867 establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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))). To the extent that Hernandez-Velazquez raises in the first instance a particular social group based, in part, on young age and previous residence in the United States, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We do not reach Hernandez-Velazquez’s contentions regarding whether the government is unable or unwilling to protect him or that he experienced …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals