NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RENE IVAN LEDEZMA-GUDINO, No. 20-72641 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-710-354 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 20, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: LEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Rene Ivan Ledezma Gudino (Ledezma), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal * 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Before the IJ, Ledezma sought relief based on the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father and his fear of cartels. But in his petition to this court, he brings a new argument: he claims he was persecuted on account of his membership in the particular social group of “Mexican minor children who cannot protect themselves.” We dismiss the petition in part and deny in part. 1. As an initial matter, we do not have jurisdiction to review Ledezma’s new argument that he is eligible for protection as a member of a particularized social group (PSG) of “Mexican minor children who cannot protect themselves.” This court may review a final order of removal only if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). As a result, “[a] petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.” Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). In the proceedings below, Ledezma argued that he was a victim of domestic violence. Before this court, Ledezma argues for the first time that he is eligible for protection as a member of the PSG of “Mexican minor children who cannot protect 1 Ledezma is not appealing the denial of cancellation of removal. 2 themselves.” Because Ledezma did not exhaust this new argument in the administrative proceedings and none of the recognized exceptions to exhaustion apply,2 we lack jurisdiction to review it. 2. We have jurisdiction over Ledezma’s exhausted claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the BIA’s order for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). First, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Ledezma’s past harm lacked a nexus to a protected ground. In addition to not articulating a recognized protected ground in his application or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals