NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC PEREYRA

- ROJAS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 1199

Agency No.

A200

- 551

- 937

MEMOR A

NDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 13, 2023 **

San Francisco, California

Before: B E A

, B E N N E T T

, an d H

. A

. T H O M A S

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

E r i c P e r e y r a

- R o j a s p e t i t i o n s for review of the Board of I mmigratio n

Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of h i s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final

order of removal. B e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e

, w e

r e c i t e t h e m o n l y a s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s p e t i t i o n

. We h a v e

j u r i s d i c t i o n

, s e e 8 U.S.C. § 1252

, a n d w e deny the petition.

1. F o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n t h e s e proceedings

, P e r e y r a

- R o j a s c h a l l e n g e s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not

precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unani mously concludes this case is suitable for decision

wit hout oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 ( a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 1199 t h e adequacy o f t h e n o t i c e t o a p p e a r

. A l t h o u g h t h e e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t i n

8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) i s n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

, S antos

- Zacaria v. Ga r l a nd

, 143 S.

Ct. 1103, 1110 (2023)

, t h e e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t i s m a n d a t o ry i f a p a r t y

t i m e l y u r g e s u s t o a p p l y i t

, U m a n a

- E s c o b a r v

. G a r l a n d

, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th

Cir. 2023)

. Because t h e g o v e r n m e n t t i m e l y r a i s e d § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 )

, P e r e y r a

- R o j a s ’ s

c h a l l e n g e t o t h e adequacy o f t h e n o t i c e t o ap p e a r i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e u s

.

2. P e r e y r a

- R o j a s

, through c o u n s e l

, w a i v e d a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f h i s

p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s a t t h e m a s t e r c a l e n d a r h e a r i n g

. H e n o w a r g u e s t h a t t h e I J

should h a v e e x p l a i n e d t o h i m h i s a p p a r e n t e l i g i b i l i t y f o r p r e

- c o n c l u s i o n

v o l u n t a r y d e p a r t u r e

. A n I J m a y

, i n s o m e s i t u a t i o n s

, q u e s t i o n an a l i e n d i r e c t l y t o

“ c o n f i r m h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e l e g a l consequences o f h i s d e c i s i o n s

. But those

circumstances typically involve an ap plicant who is proceeding pro se. On the

ot h er hand, we typically allow IJs to rely on representations by counsel. ”

Troncoso

- Oviedo v. Garland , 43 F.4th 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2022 ) ( c l e a n e d u p )

.

T h e I J w a s e n t i t l e d t o r e l y o n P e r e y r a

- R o j a s ’ s a t t o r n e y ’ s w a i v e r o f a n

e x p l a n a t i o n o f P e r e y r a

- R o j a s ’ s proce d ural r i g h t s

.

3. P e r e y r a

- R o j a s

, through c o u n s e l

, c o n c e d e d t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r

e m b e z z l e m e n t

, C a l

. P e n a l C o d e § 5 0 3

, w a s a c r i m e o f m o r a l t u r p i t u d e t h a t

b a rr e d cancellation o f r e m o v a l a n d p o s t

- c o n c l u s i o n v o l u n t a r y d e p a r t u r e

. S e e de

Rodriguez v. Holder , 724 F .3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2013) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a n

a l i e n ’ s c o n c e s s i o n s “ a r e b i n d i n g ” w h e r e “ there is no possibility that [ t h e a l i e n ]

mistakenly conceded removability bas ed on a n ow

- questionable rule of law ”3 21

- 1199 ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g Huerta

– Guevara v. Ashcroft , 321 F .3d 883

, 8 8 6 (9th Cir.

2003) ) )

.

4. T h e I J a n a l y z e d P e r e y r a

- R o j a s ’ s p r o p o s e d particular s o c i a l g r o u p s

( “ P S G s ” ) u n d e r the s p e c i f i c f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e

, s e e Diaz

- Reynoso v. Bar r , 96 8

F.3d 1070, 1086 (9th Cir. 2020 )

, b y e x a m i n i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s h e s u b m i t t e d

r e g a r d i n g c o u n t r y c o n d i t i o n s i n P e r u 1 a n d b y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h o s e d o c u m e n t s

d i d n o t p r o v e t h a t h i s p r o p o s e d P S G s a r e s u f f

i c i e n t l y d i s t i n c t o r p a r t i c u l a r i n

P e r u

. T h e I J f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t P e r e y r a

- R o j a s d i d n o t p r o v e a l i k e l i h o o d o f

f

u t u r e persecution “ o n a c c o u n t o f ” h i s m e m b e r s h i p i n a n y s u c h P S G

, w h i c h i s

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r membership i n a P S G i s “ a r e a s o n ”

f

o r p e r s e c u t i o n

, s e e Baraja s

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 3 5 7

– 60 (9th Cir.

2017)

.

5. T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t P e r e y r a

- R o j a s w i l l

m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t b e t o r t u r e d w i t h t h e acquiescence o f g o v e r n m e n t o f f

i c i a l s i f

r e m o v e d t o P e r u

, a s i s r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n r e l i e f u n d e r the C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s t

T o r t u r e

. Garcia

- Mili an v. Ho lde r , 755 F. 3d 10 26, 103 3

– 3 5 (9th Cir. 2014)

.

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D

.

1 Neither the documents cited by the IJ nor any other documen ts submitted by

P e r e y r a

- R o j a s men tion persecution of Peru vian deporte es or P e r e y r a

- R o j a s ’ s family,

which were the two proposed PSGs in which Pe reyra

- Rojas claimed membership.