NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALVINA ALVAREZ SANCHEZ; 

RICARDO JIMENEZ ALVAREZ, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-73484 

Agency Nos. A201-221-987 

A201-221-989 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Valvina Alvarez Sanchez and Ricardo Jimenez Alvarez, natives and citizens 

of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion 

to continue and their application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our 

* 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

NOV 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-73484 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question 

of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that 

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and 

regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We

dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding the IJ’s 

denial of their motion to continue because they did not raise them to the BIA. See 

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction 

to review claims not presented to the agency); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 

(9th Cir. 2004) (concluding the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” 

decisions in which the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion). We reject as 

unsupported by the record petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to address 

relevant case law in its analysis of the motion to continue where petitioners did not 

raise any argument as to that motion in their brief to the BIA, including any 

contention of relevant law to consider.

The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of 
3 20-73484 

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with 

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s determination that petitioners otherwise failed to establish 

that they would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from 

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members 

bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining 

contentions, including whether the agency erred in finding the social group was 

improperly defined by the harm suffered. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 

538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues 

unnecessary to the results they reach).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.