Walfre Sis Chocoj v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALFRE RAFAEL SIS CHOCOJ, No. 13-73830 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-758-153 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Walfre Rafael Sis Chocoj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Sis Chocoj’s asylum claim where he failed to exhaust any challenge the IJ’s determination that his asylum application was untimely. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review as to Sis Chocoj’s asylum claim. As to Sis Chocoj’s withholding claim, we lack jurisdiction to review the social group claim raised for the first time in the opening brief because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sis Chocoj failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Sis Chocoj’s withholding claim. In Sis Chocoj’s opening brief, he does not make any arguments challenging 2 13-73830 the agency’s dispositive conclusion that he failed to demonstrate that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Sis Chocoj’s CAT claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 13-73830 13-73830 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Walfre Sis Chocoj v. Jefferson Sessions 22 February 2018 Agency Unpublished 54ed8ffe91fbc6061eff9e066d80143950e5a4a5

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals