N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ER NESTO OLIVERIO M OR ALES-C H O, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-71050 Age n c y No. A088-889-844 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 Subm itte d

June 12, 2014 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Erne sto Olive rio M o ra le s-C ho, a nat ive and c i tiz e n

of Guate m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# FIL ED JUN 16 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w a nd for substa

ntia l e v ide nc e fa c tua l findings. W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny in pa rt a nd grant in pa

rt the pe tition for re v ie w , a nd we re m and. M ora le s-C ho sought a sy lum and withholding of re

m o va l on theba s is of his m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t M ora le s -C ho e s ta

blishe d that he qua lifie d for e ithe r the c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s e xc e ption to e xc use an untim e ly

a sy lum a pplic ation. S

e e8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); AntonioMartine z v . IN S , 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [a ] s a ge ne ra l rule , ignora nc e of the la

w is no e xc use ” ). Thus, his a sy lum c la i m fa ils. W ith re spe c t to M ora le s-C ho’ s withholding of re m ova l c l a im , howe ve r, whe n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the ir de c isions in this c a se the y did not ha

ve the be ne fit of e ithe r this c ourt’ s de c isions in He nrique z -Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ), C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C i r. 2013), a nd PirirBocv . Holde r , No. 09-73671, 2014 W L 1797657 (9th C ir. M ay 7, 2014), or the B IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a nd Matte r of W -G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Furthe r, a lthough the B IA re fe re n c e s ne xus, we c annot a ffirm on this ground be c a

use the B IA inc orporate d the IJ’ s re a soning, a

nd the IJ’ s de nia l wa s ba se d in pa rt on c ogniz a

b i lity . Thus, we

1 2 - 7 1 0 5 0 2re m and M ora le s-C ho’ s withholding of re m ova l c la i m

to de te rm ine the im

p a c t, if any , of the fore going de c isions. Se eIN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts for this petition for re vie w . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D .

1 2 - 7 1 0 5 0 3