NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LOPEZ SALAZAR,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 71744 Agency No. A087

- 990

- 909

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 7, 2022 * * San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, ** * District Judge. Jose Lopez Salazar, a native and citizen of Guate mala, petitions for review of a decision by 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 William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designa tion. 

# FILED

MAR 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

from the I mmigration J udge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for withholding
of removal and deeming his application for relief under the C onvent ion A gainst

T orture withdrawn . We review the agency’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas

- Rodriguez v. Sessions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We have jurisdiction u nder 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

. Lopez Salazar’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction is foreclosed by our
decisions in Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 893

– 9 5 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 664 (2020), and Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160

– 6 2 (9th Cir. 2019). Lopez Salazar’s briefing appears to argue that we should conclude
that Aguilar Fermin and Karingithi were wrongly decided , b ut we are bound by our prior caselaw absent extraordinary circumstances not present here

. Miller v.
Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Although Lopez Salazar adequately exhausted the issue, he is mistaken in claiming that the agency failed to sufficiently consider whether his proposed particular social group of “repatriated Guatemalan males who oppose gang
violence” satisfied the criteria identified in Matter of M

– E

– V

– G

– , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014 )

. The IJ concluded that this proposed g roup did not satisfy the M

– E

– V

– G

– criteria , finding the group “lack[ed] immutable status as well as particularity and social distinction.” The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s3

decision citing Matter of Burbano , 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) , meaning that it was not required to conduct its own individualized analysis of the proposed group. “Our caselaw establishes that where the BIA cites its decision in Burbano and does not express disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, the BIA
ad opts the IJ’s decision in its entirety.” Abebe v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The agency adequately addressed this argument , and Lopez Salazar has not argued that the agency’s conclusion was unsupported by substantial evidence, waiving any such challenge

. Bingxu Jin v. Holder , 748 F.3d 959, 964 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014). Lopez Salazar’s remaining arguments are unexhausted, and therefore
unreviewable. See Alvarado v. Holder , 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) ( stating that issue exhaust ion is a jurisdictional requirement); Sola v. Holder , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135

– 36 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (declining to address due process argument not raised below, which could have been addressed by the agency).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.