Court Opinion

ID: 9926465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 20:01:06.541351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:53.362906
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                           JAN 24 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO GIMENEZ CARAZO; et al.,                 No. 22-1645
                                                 Agency Nos.
             Petitioners,                        A209-820-707
                                                 A209-820-711
 v.
                                                 A209-820-712
                                                 A209-820-713
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Fernando Gimenez Carazo, Jenifer Cristiane Knabben, and their two

children, natives and citizens of Brazil, petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

      *
             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).
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, and Gimenez

Carazo’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for

review.

      Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived

challenge to IJ’s determination that they did not establish an exception to excuse

the untimely asylum application, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Petitioners’ contention that their

untimely asylum application warranted an exception is not properly before the

court because they failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

(exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v.

Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional

claim-processing rule). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

      Because Gimenez Carazo does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that

his proposed particular social group lacked social distinction or that he otherwise

failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, we do not address them. See

Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, Gimenez Carazo’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

                                        2                                   22-1645
      Because Gimenez Carazo does not challenge the agency’s CAT denial, we

do not address it. Id.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                      3                                  22-1645