N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE ALFREDO HER

N ANDEZ C HIGUIL, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72221 Age n c y No. A070-785-396 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm i tte d Se pte m

be r 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FISHER , a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . The fa c ts a

n d proc e dura l posture of this c a se are known to the pa rtie s, a nd we do not re pe a t the m he re . Jose Alfre do He rnande z C higuil file d a pe tition for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ de c ision a ffirm ing a n orde r of 

# FIL E D SEP 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.re m ova l a

nd de ny ing a

n a pplic a tion for a sy lum . For the re a sons be l ow, we dism iss the p e tition in pa

rt, for la c k

of jurisdic t ion, a

nd de ny the re m a i nde r of the pe tition. C higuil’ s first a

rgum e nt—

that the IJ la c ke d substa

n tia l e vide nc e whe n it found tha t C higuil did not suffe

r pa st pe rse c ution—is not prope rly be fore us. Our re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision is lim ite d to “ the grounds re lie d upon by [the ] a ge nc y . ” Santiago-Rodrigue z v . Holde r , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Andia v . Ashc roft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam )). And he re the B IA c le a

rly a ssum e d “ that [C higuil] has e stablishe d past pe rse c ution ” and inste a d rule d a ga inst him on a lte rnative grounds. W e thus c annot re vie w a n a spe c t of the B IA’ s de c ision tha t it a s sum e d in C higuil’ s favor. C higuil ne xt a

rgue s tha t the IJ la c ke d substa

ntia l e vide nc e whe n it found tha t c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s in Gua

te m a la pre c l ude d a

ny we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Hea lso a

rgue s tha t the B IA’ s a

na ly sis of c ha

nge d c i rc um sta

nc e s sim ila rly la c ke d substa

ntia l e vide nc e and fa ile d to c o m port with due

proc e ss. C higuil fa ile d to e xha

ust the se argum e nts be fore the B IA. Fa ilure to brie f issue s be fore the B IA am ounts to a fa ilure to e xha

ust, whic h in turn pre c lude s our jurisdic tion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Alv a rado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1127–28 (9th C ir. 2014). As sta te d in the B IA’ s de c i sion, C higuil

“ [did] not c ha lle nge [the IJ’ s fa c tua l] finding [a bout c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s] on 2a

ppe a l or pre se nt a

n a rgum e nt to show tha

t this finding wa s in e rror.” Hav ing wa ive d a ny c ha lle n ge to the IJ’ s finding be fore the B IA, C higuil a lso pre c lude d our a bility to re a c h the m e rits of his a rgum e nt. C higuil c o nte nds, howe ve r, tha t the B IA a c tua lly

re a c he d the m e rits of his c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s a rgum e nt. He points to the B IA’ s obse rva tion in a footnote that the State De pa

rtm e nt c o untry

re port for Gua

t e m a la showe d “ no re p orts of politic a lly

m otiva te d killings by

the gove rnm e nt or its a ge nts, a nd no politic a lly m otiva t e d disa p p e ara nc e s.” W e grant tha

t this give s som e a

p pe aranc e of ha

ving re a c he d the m e rits of C higuil’ s c la im be c a u s e the IJ did not m e ntion the se spe c ific a spe c ts of the c ountry

re port in its de c ision. Se e Vizc a rra-Ay ala v . Muk ase y , 514 F.3d 870, 873 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [C ] la im s a ddre sse d on the m e rits by the B IA are e xha uste d.” ). On the whole , howe ve r, the B IA’ s pa ssing obse rva tion tha t c irc um s ta nc e s a ppe ar to ha

ve in fa c t c ha

nge d wa s just tha

t— a pa ssing obse rva tion. The ba sis of the B IA’ s ruling wa s quite c le ar: C h iguil wa ive d a ny c ha l le nge to the IJ’ s finding of c ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s be fore the B IA, a

nd the B IA wa s a c c ordingly

oblige d to de ny

him re lie f. W e are without jurisdiction to c o nside r C higuil’ s a

rgum e nt on them e rits. W e are sim ila

rly without jurisdiction to c onside r C higuil’ s third argum e nt—

that the B IA viola

te d his right to due proc e s s a nd a buse d its disc re tion 3by

fa iling to c onside r whe t

h e r he wa s e ligiblefor hum anita rian a sy lum . C h iguil ne ve r argue d to the B IA that he wa s e ntitle d to hum anita rian a s y lum . W e a c c ordingly

la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r it. Se e Rodas-Me ndoza v . IN S , 246 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th C ir. 2001) (pe r c uriam ) (holding pe titione r wa ive d hum a nita rian a sy lum c la im

not ra ise d be fore e ithe r the IJ or the B IA). B ut e ve n if we did, he c ite s no a uthority re quiring sua

sponte c onside ra t ion of hum anita ria n a sy lum c la im s. C f. Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1072 (9th C ir. 2008) (re m anding to the B IA “ to c onside r in the first insta nc e whe the r it wishe s to gra nt” hum anita

rian a sy lum whe re the pe t itione r re que ste d hum anita rian a sy lum

be fore the IJ a

nd the issue wa s ne v e r a djudic a te d); Matte r of D-I-M , 24 I. & N. De c . 448, 450 (B IA 2008) (noting re gula

tory fra m e work for hum anita

rian a sy lum , but by

no m e ans re quiring tha

t a na ly sis be c onduc te d sua

sponte ). Fina lly , C higuil a

rgue s tha t the B IA de n ie d him

due proc e ss a

nd a buse d its disc re tion whe n

it “ fa ile d to de c ide whe the r or not [C higuil] e sta blishe d pa st pe rse c ution a

nd did not provide

an e xpla nation for sim

ply a ssum ing ‘ argue ndo’ that [C higuil] c ould e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution.” This a rgum e nt ha s no m e rit. The B IA is not re quire d

to e xpla in its de c ision to rule on a l te rna tive grounds. Se e Marc u v . IN

S , 147 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th C ir. 1998) (noting tha t “ the B IA did not ne e d to m ake a

finding on whe t

he r [the pe titione r] ha d

de m onstra

te d pa st 4pe rse c ution” be c a use it “ found tha

t the INS ha d re butte d

the pre sum

ption” of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution). This wa s ne ithe r an a b u se of disc re tion nor a de n ia l of due proc e ss. W e DISM ISS C higuil’ s pe tition for re v ie w with re spe c t to his une xha uste d c la im s a nd we DE NY the ba la

n c e of his pe tition.

5