N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SALVADOR

SANC HEZ-AGUILAR , AKA Sa lva dor Sanc he z Aguila r, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71433 Age n c y No. A079-164-493
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 10, 2022 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, M c KEOW N, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Sa lva dor Sanc he z -Aguila r pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a

p plic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the 

# FIL ED AUG 19 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252. W e de ny the pe tition. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we
ne e d not re c o unt the m

he re . I Sanc he z -Aguila

r c ha lle nge s the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. Howe ve r, the B IA did not a dopt this finding. Inste a d , the B IA a ssum e d Sanc he z Aguila r wa s c re dible an d

de nie d his withholding c l a im on the m e rits. B e c a

use we

“ m ay a ffirm the [a ge nc y ] only

on grounds se t forth in theopinion under re vie w,”
se e R e c inos De

Le on v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th C i r. 2005), we de c line to c o nside r Sanc h e z -Aguila r’ s c ha lle nge .

II W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Sanc h e z -Aguila r’ s a sy lum

c la im , be c a

use the B IA c onc lude d he wa ive d a ny argum e nt tha

t an a sy lum c la im wa s tim e ly

on
a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l. W e a lso la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Sanc he z -Aguila r’ s
c la im of future pe rse c ution ba se d on his opposition to the drug tra de
. The B IA
a lso de e m e d this issue

wa ive d for fa ilure to ra ise it in his adm inistra tive a ppe a l. B e c a use Sanc he z -Aguila

r fa ile d to e xha

ust his a d m inistra t ive re m e dy

with re ga rd

1 Sanc he z -Aguila

r’ s C AT c la im

is not a t issuea s he doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s de nia l on wa i ve r grounds. 2to the se issue s, we la c k jurisdic tion to c o nside r the m now. Zara v . Ashc roft , 383

F.3d 927, 930 (9th C ir. 2004). III Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Sa nc he z -Aguila

r fa ile d to show a

c le ar proba

bility of future pe rse c ution a s ne c e ssa ry for withholding of rem o v a l. The B IA re a sona bly c onc lude d tha

t the thre at s to Sanc he z -Aguila

r’ s brothe r did not de m o nstra te a c le ar proba

bility of future pe rse c ution be c a

use “ the re is little

indic ation tha

t the se c rim ina ls ha

v e a de sire to
a c t upon the thre at a ga i nst the fam ily .” Ville g as Sanc he z v . Garland

, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th C ir. 2021) (a gre e ing with the B IA’ s re a soning tha

t “ unfulfille d thre ats ge ne ra lly

c onstitute

ha ra ssm e nt rathe r tha

n pe rse c ution” ). Additionally , the B IA re a sona

bly c o nc l ude d tha

t Sa n c he z -Aguila

r’ s c l a im of future pe rse c ution wa s unde rm ine d by

the fa c t tha

t his siblings a

nd pa re nts ha ve re m a ine d

in M e xic o unha rm e d. Se e Santos-Le mus v . Muk ase y , 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th C i r. 2008), abrogate d on othe r grounds by He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ) (“ Whe re the c la im e d group m e m be rship is the

fam ily , a fam ily
m e m b e r’ s c ontinuing sa fe ty

is a n e ve n m ore pe rsua sive fa c tor in c onside ring a pe titione r’ s . . . fe a

r.” ).

3Fina lly , the B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Sa nc he z -Aguila

r’ s pa rtic ula r
soc i a l group of M e xic an c i t iz e ns re turning from the U.S. wa s ove rbroa d a nd did not show a

n “ individualiz e d risk of ha rm .” De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t “ re turning M e xic ans from the Unite d Stat e s” is not a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group be c a

use it is too broad). PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

4