Case ID: f-appx_383/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nilson Herney VALENCIA-RIASCOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 8, 2010.
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Nilson Herney Valencia-Riascos, pro se.
    Matthew Paul Nickson, Matthew P. Nickson, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Nilson Herney Valencia-Riascos, a citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Valencia-Riascos challenges the IJ’s finding that he was ineligible for asylum because- he failed to establish a nexus between his feared persecution and his membership in a particular social group consisting of the family members of his step-father. Valencia-Riascos’s pro se Notice of Appeal to the BIA, however, even construed liberally, see, e.g., Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004), provided the agency no notice that he was appealing the IJ’s particular social group finding. Valencia-Rias-cos’s failure to raise the particular social group issue before the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, depriving us of jurisdiction to entertain the claims raised in Valencia-Riascos’s petition for review. Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir.2000); see also Barron, 358 F.3d at 678. The petition for review is, accordingly,

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.