NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Juan Francisco Alonzo Nicolas; Francisco Alexis Alonzo Rufino,

Petitioners,

v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Responden t. No. 21

- 338
Agency Nos. A200

- 295

- 781 A209

- 164

- 221

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2023 **
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r nia

Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA , Circuit Judges

.

Petitioners Juan F r a n c i s c o Alonzo Nico las and Francisco Alexis Alonzo

Rufino , both natives and citizens of Guatemala

, petition for review of a Board

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” ) order upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

* This disposition is not appropria te 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 withou t oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 338 denial of Petitioners’ applications for asylum and other forms of re lief. 1 We

review de novo the BIA’s determinations on questions of law and mixed

questions of law and fact. Cordoba v. Holder , 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir.

20 13). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Br ingas

- Rodriguez v. Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) ( e n b a n c )

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition s

.

I

.

Petitioners argue the BIA lacked jurisdiction because their initial Notice s

to Appear did not include a time and date for t heir remov al hearing s

. Because

Petitioners did not raise this argument before the agency, we lack jurisdiction to

consider it

. Ruiz

- Colmenares v. Garland , 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022)

.

II.

Petitioners’ asylum claim is based on membership in th e pr oposed social

group o f those who “fear of retribution for refusal to join a gang

. ” We have

previously rejected proposed p a r t i c u l a r social groups based on resistance to

gang recruitment for lack of particularity

. See Barrios v. Holder , 581 F.3d 849,

854

– 5 5 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting “ young men in Guatemala who resist gang

recruitment ” as a cognizable particular social group )

, a brogated in part on other

grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 108 1 (9th Cir. 2013) (en

1 Petitioners ’ other forms of r elief include withholding of removal, protection under the Con vention Ag ains t Torture
, and v oluntary departure. Petition e rs do not challenge , and the refore wa i ve, these issues

. See Rios v. Lynch

, 807 F.3d 1123 , 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s brief are waived).3 21

- 338 banc)

. P e t i t i o n e r s f a i l e d t o s h o w G uatemalan society views “ fear of retribution

for refusing to join a gang ” a s a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l group

. W e conclude t h e B I A

d i d n o t e r r i n a f f

i r m i n g t h e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f P e t i t i o n e r s ’ a s y l u m c l a i m

. 2

The temporary stay of removal remai ns in place until the mandate issue s.

PETITION S DENIED.

2 Pirir

- Boc v. Hold er , 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) does not alter ou r conclusion

. I n P i r i r

- B o c , we h eld that the BIA erre d in failing t o consider evidence of how Guatemalan society viewed a proposed particular social group. Id . at 1084. Here, the IJ considered Petitione rs’ only society

- specific evidence

— the 2017 Guatemala Human Rights Report

— and determ ined it was insuffici ent to demonstr ate that “fear of retribution for refusal to join a gang” was a particular social group

. T h e r e c o r d lacks a n y count r y condition report, news report, law, proposed legislation, or expert testimony d e m o n s t r a t i n g s o c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n

.