NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0189n.06 No. 09-3785 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT MAURICIO ENRIQUE VASQUEZ,

P etitioner -Appellant, ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VI EW v. OF AN OR DE R O F THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N ER IC H. H OLD ER , J R. , AP P EA LS

Respondent-Appellee. _____________________________________/ BEF OR E: BOG G S, SU HR HEI NRIC H an d STR AN CH , C ir c uitJudg e s. SUHRHEINRICH, C i rc u it Judge. Petitioner Mauricio Enr ique Vasque z seeks reve rsal of the de cision of the B oard of I mmigra tion Appe als (“B I A”) aff

irming the denial of his application fo r a sylum

a nd wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. On

a pp e a l, V a sq

ue z fo rf e its ne c e ssa

ry argume nts and , th

us , cannot suc cee d in his challeng e of the BIA’s dec ision. W e AF F IRM

. I. BACKG ROUND Va sq ue z wa s b or

n in Me xico in 1 98 6. Ar ound a g e tw o, he and

his mothe r m ov e d to Col umb ia

. Va sq

ue z is a cit ize n of Me xico and Col omb ia and c ur re ntl y ho lds va lid

pa ssp or ts t o b oth countries. Vasque z enter ed the United S tates i n J une 2001 and rece ived lawf ul permane nt-reside nt status approxim ately

one y ear later. Since his arriva l in the United States, Vasquez has twice returne d to Colom bia. In October 2004, the Circuit Court of Washington County , Arka nsas, convicte d Vasque z of

se ve ra l c ri min a l of

fe ns e s in c lud ingc omp ute r f ra ud , th e ft of pr op e rt y , and for gery . E a c h o ff e ns e-2-

allowed f or the imposit ion of a sente nce of one y ear or long er. A s a re sult, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

serve d Vasque z with a Notice to Appea r for remova l proce eding s. See 8 U .S. C. § 1227(a) (2)( A)(i) (2008) (allowing for removal of a lawful perma nent resident upon his conviction of a c rime involving mora l turpitude, if a sentenc e of one y ear or longe r may be imposed, and if the conviction occ urs within five y ea rs o f ad mission). Further more, be cause the conviction occ urre d within five y ear s of Vasque z’s admission as a permane nt resident, he was ineligible f or ca ncellation of re moval. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1) (2008). On November 22, 2006, Vasque z filed an application for asylum and withholding of r emoval purs ua nt t o 8 U. S.C. § 11 58 (b ). Th is se c tio n pe rm its a sylum fo r a re fu g e e wh o s ho ws an in a bil ity or unwillingne ss to return to his country of nationality

beca use of a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution

on a c c ou nt of hi s mem

be rs hip in a

pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up . A c c or din g ly , V a sq ue z ar g ue d th a t hi s family constituted a par

ticular social g roup and that, beca use various people a

nd org anizations had committed severa l violent acts ag ainst his family members, he fea

red r eturning to Colom bia. On May 10, 2007, the I mmigration J udg e (“I J ”) issued an order , reje cting both the argument that V a sq ue z’s fa mil y c on sti tut e d a

de fi ne d s oc ia l g ro up and the c on te nti on that V a sq ue z ha d a we llfounded f ear of per secution. B ased on these finding s, the I J denied a sy lum. The I J also denied withholding of r emoval on the g round that Va squez failed to make th e re quisite showing that pe rs e c uti on

wa s mo re lik e ly tha

n no t to oc c ur . F ina lly , th e I J dec lin e d to e xer c ise his dis c re tio n to g rant a sy lum because Vasque z’s convictions involved crimes of mora l turpitude. Alth o u g h th e I J a c kn o w le d g e d th a t V a s qu e z d id

n o t w an t t o r e tu

r nto M e xic o an d

h a d no fa mil y the re , th e I J con c lud e d th a t V a sq ue z ha d p ur

po se fu lly a va ile d hims e lf of his Me xica n tie s in order to secure a Mexican passport pr ior to his potential removal to Columbia. Consequently , the-3-

I J order ed Va squez removed to Mexico, or in the alter native, to Colombia. O n J u n e 4 , 2 0 0 7 , V a s q

u e z s u b m i t t e d h i s n o t i c e o f a

p p e a l t o t h e B IA

. H e s t a t e d t h a tt h e IJ

e rr e d b y re fu sin g to r e c og nize his fa mil y a s a pa rt ic ula r soci a l g ro up and

e rr e d b y de nyinghis

a pp lic a tio n fo r a sy

lum and wi thh old ing of re mov a l. Al tho ug h Va sq ue z ind ic a te d h e int e nd e d to fi le a sepa rate , written brief

, he neve r did so. On May 27, 2009, the BI A di smissed the appeal. The BI A refused to rec og nize Vasquez’s family as a de fined socia l gr oup. Pointi ng out that Vasque z’s family appar ently

suffe red violenc e at the hands of disparate actor s, the BIA conclude d that Vasque z’s family members do not shar e any immutable char acte ristics and lack social visibil ity sufficie nt to allow Colom bian society to perc eive them as a g roup. The B I A also ref used to f ind that Vasquez possessed the r equisite well-f ounded fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on . In s up po rt of thi s c on c lus ion , th e B I A c ite d V a sq ue z’s re tur

n tr ips to C olo mbi a

an d h i s i n s u f f i c i e n te x p l an a t i o nf

o r t h e v i s i t s , g i v e nh i s p u r p o rt e d f e ar . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e B IA observe d th a t t h e la c k o f an y p e r s e c u ti o no nth e s e r e tu r ntr ip s s ig n if

ic an tl y u n d e r c u t V a s qu e z’s

asser tion of fea

r. Be cause the B I A conc luded that Vasque z wa s not a member of

a def ined social g roup and lacke d a we ll-founded f

ear of per sec ution, it denied asy lum. The BIA also denie d withholding of

remova l on the basis that it requires a more de manding standard of proof than a sy lum. Va sq ue z ap pe a ls. II. AN AL YSI S A. Jurisdiction I nit ia lly , w e c on sid e r o ur

jur isd ic tio n to he ar thi s app e a l. T he g ov e rnme nt c la ims a pp e llate jur isd ic tio n is la c kin g in t hat V a sq ue z did no t e ff e c tiv e ly e xha

us t his a dmi nis tr a tiv e c la ims be c a us eThe re quirements of the statute may also be satisfied in wa

y s not releva

nt to Vasquez’s 1 appea l. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (2010). -4- he fa iled to challeng e the I J ’s orde r of r emoval to Mexico before the B I A. We “ may re vie w a

fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l on ly if ” the peti ti on er “ ha s e xha us te d a ll

a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s ava ila ble to [him] as of ri g ht. ” 8 U.S. C. § 12 52 (d )( 1) (2 00 5) ; Madrigal v. Holder , 572 F.3d 239, 243 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) . T o f ulf ill the e xha

us tio n r e qu ir e me nt t

he pe tit ion e r m

us t “first a rg ue ea ch cl ai m b ef

ore the I J or the B I A”; fa ilure to do so strips the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the B I A’s dec ision. Cs e k in e k v. I.N.S. , 3 9 1 F.3d 819, 822 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1))

. Although V asquez did not submit a brie f to the BIA re g ardinghis assertion that the I J err ed in de ny ing his a

pplication for asylum a

nd withholding of remova l, the BIA considere d Vasquez’s appea l on the merits. When the BIA i ssued i ts decision di smissi ng his appea l, it preclude d Vasque z fr om se e kin g fu

rt he r a dmi nis tr a tiv e re lie f; a s a c on se qu e nc e , he ha s e ff e c tiv e ly e xha

uste d all available administrative re medies. Madrigal , 5 72 F .3 d at 24 3. Thus , w e have jur isd ic tio n to a dd re ss Vasque z’s appeal. B. Mer its On appe al, Vasque z claims that the BI A er red in concluding that he did not qualify for

a s y l u m r e l i e f u n d e r 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 8

. T o qu a l i f y f o r a s y l u m u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n , an a p pli c a nt m us t show that he is a r efug ee w ithin the definition of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) , which re quires both that he (1) has a “ well-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution” an d (2 ) that this fear is “on ac count of . . .

me mb e r s h ip in a

p arti c u la r s o c ia l g r o u

p [. ]” I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 423 (1987) 1 (c iti ng8 U .S. C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 )) . A lth ou g h Va sq ue z’s br ie f on ap pe a l e xplic itl y a c kn ow le dg e s b oth-5-

e le me nts , h e fa ile d to pre se nt a nd de ve lop any

argume nt r e g ard ingthe fi rs t e le me nt. As a re su lt, Va sq ue z ha s no t su ff

ic ie ntl y ra ise d his we ll- fo un de d f e ar o f p e rs e c uti on

a s an is su e be fo re thi s c ourt ; his asy lum arg ument t h erefore fails. See Fe d. R. App. P. 28 (requiringthat an appe llant’s brief

c on ta in a state me nt o f t

he iss ue s p re se nte d o n a

pp e a l and a n a rgume nt f or e a c h is su e ); Marks v

. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc ., 342 F.3d 444, 462 (6th Cir. 2003). To the ex tent that identifying the correct leg al standar d somehow constitutes an a rg ument, it is st ill ins ufficie nt. See M cPhe rson v. Kelsey , 1 2 5 F

. 3 d

9 8 9 , 9 9 5 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e xp la in in g th a t i s s u e s r a is e d in a p e r f u n c to r y ma nner, without some effor

t at developingan ar g ument, are deeme d waived) . In other wor ds, Vasquez has forf eited any a r g u me nt conce rning the B I A’s conc lusion that he failed to demonstrate a we ll-founded fea r of perse cution. As a result, he cannot possibly preva il on appea l. We there fore decline to r eac h the issue of whe ther Va squez’s family constituted a par

ticular socia l gr oup. To the extent Vasquez contests the BIA’s aff irmance of the I J ’s denial of his application for withholding of r emoval, Vasquez waived his arguments by not discussing withholdi ng of re moval in his brief. More over, V asquez neve r m entions that his removal to Colombia was only in the alte r n a ti v e to h is r e mo v a l to M e xic o . I n d e e d , in V a s qu e z’ s b r ie f b e f o r e th is c o u rt, M e xic o is not mentioned at all. By failing to raise this issue, Vasque z forfeits any challeng e of his orde r of r emoval to Mex ico. B y

forf eiting a rg uments nece ssary

to h i s challeng e of the BI A’s dec ision, Vasquez cannot suc cee d on appea l. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the B I A’s dec ision.