NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SILVIA DE LA PAZ CABEZAS FLORES, No. 18-70822 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-852-461 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 21, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Silvia De La Paz Cabezas Flores petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and her motions to * 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). remand to the IJ. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We deny the petition for review for the reasons that follow. 1. In her opening brief, Petitioner claims asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in the proposed particular social groups of “unprotected females in El Salvador” or “women unable to leave a domestic relationship with a gang member in El Salvador.” “A 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). “[I]ssue exhaustion is a jurisdictional requirement . . . .” Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1130 (9th Cir. 2014). “To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, [Petitioner] needed to put the BIA on notice in [her] appeal.” Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955, 959 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). And “the [BIA] does not per se err when it concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained.” Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Petitioner failed to administratively exhaust these claims to asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner did not bring her claim of membership in the proposed particular social group “women unable to leave a domestic relationship with a gang member in El Salvador” before the BIA. And the BIA declined to address her proposed particular social group of “unprotected females in El Salvador” because she did not bring it before the IJ in a timely manner. Petitioner 2 does not argue any exception to the requirement of administrative exhaustion applies. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider these claims. 2. As to the proposed social group Petitioner raised before the IJ and the BIA (“Salvadoran women in common law marriages who are unable to leave their relationships”), Petitioner argues that the BIA and the IJ erred in concluding that her proposed social group did not have the same “immutable” characteristics as “married women in Guatemala who are ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals