NOT FOR PUBLICATION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,

 Respondent.

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**

Pasadena, California

Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Juan Francisco Alonzo Nicolas 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 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).

FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-338

denial of Petitioners’ applications for asylum and other forms of relief.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. 

2013). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. 

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). 

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

I.

Petitioners argue the BIA lacked jurisdiction because their initial Notices

to Appear did not include a time and date for their removal hearings. 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 the proposed social 

group of those who “fear of retribution for refusal to join a gang.” We have 

previously rejected proposed particular social groups based on resistance to 

gang recruitment for lack of particularity. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 

854–55 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting “young men in Guatemala who resist gang 

recruitment” as a cognizable particular social group), abrogated in part on other 

grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en 

1 Petitioners’ other forms of relief include withholding of removal, protection 

under the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure. Petitioners do 

not challenge, and therefore waive, 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). Petitioners failed to show Guatemalan society views “fear of retribution 

for refusing to join a gang” as a particular social group. We conclude the BIA

did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum claim.

2

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITIONS DENIED.

2 Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) does not alter our 

conclusion. In Pirir-Boc, we held that the BIA erred in failing to consider 

evidence of how Guatemalan society viewed a proposed particular social group. 

Id. at 1084. Here, the IJ considered Petitioners’ only society-specific 

evidence—the 2017 Guatemala Human Rights Report—and determined it was

insufficient to demonstrate that “fear of retribution for refusal to join a gang” 

was a particular social group. The record lacks any country condition report, 

news report, law, proposed legislation, or expert testimony demonstrating social

distinction.