Court Opinion

ID: 9371683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 18:00:30.551139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.525757
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 16 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR ENRIQUE CHIGUILA                       No.    18-73007
SANTOS,
                                                Agency No. A202-086-299
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February, 16 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Salvador Enrique Chiguila Santos (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El

Salvador, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his applications for asylum,

      *
             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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in

part the petition.1

       First, we do not have jurisdiction to address Petitioner’s claim that the BIA

and IJ misstated his particular social group as “members of a family owned

business” rather than “former members of a family owned business.” Before the

BIA, Petitioner did not challenge the IJ’s classification of his particular social

group as “members of a family owned business.” His passing references in his

brief to “previously being a family business owner,” were insufficient to put the

BIA on notice that he was challenging the IJ’s description of his particular social

group. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). Because

Petitioner failed to raise this argument to the BIA, we do not have jurisdiction to

address it here. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

       Second, we reject Petitioner’s argument that “members of a family owned

business” qualifies as a particular social group. Substantial evidence supports the

BIA and IJ’s determination that this group is not socially distinct. See Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The BIA’s conclusion

regarding social distinction—whether there is evidence that a specific society

       1
        Petitioner does not present any arguments challenging the denial of CAT
protection and, thus, has waived that claim. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions,
882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018).

                                           2
recognizes a social group—is a question of fact that we review for substantial

evidence.”). The record here does not compel the conclusion that “members of a

family owned business” are recognized by Salvadoran society as distinct from

other business owners, merchants, or, more broadly, people with money. Because

Petitioner is unable to show membership in a particular social group or persecution

based on another protected category, he does not qualify for asylum and

withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

      Finally, because the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s asylum and

withholding claims on the merits and did not consider the IJ’s findings related to

the one-year filing bar, we do not consider Petitioner’s challenges to those

findings. See Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1088 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A

panel may only affirm on the grounds set forth in the BIA's decision.”).

      PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.2

      2
        In light of our ruling, the motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. See
Dkt. 1. The temporary stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues.

                                           3