Court Opinion

ID: 9364586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 18:00:38.207863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.254377
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE VALENZUELA-FIGUEROA, AKA No. 18-72865
Jorge Valenzuela,
                               Agency No. A205-314-241
               Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 7, 2022**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      Jorge Valenzuela-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of

an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Valenzuela contends that the BIA

erred when it failed to consider his claimed fear that he would be persecuted upon

his return to Mexico because he is a family member of a police officer.

Alternatively, Valenzuela argues this panel should terminate the removal proceeding

because it was initiated by an allegedly defective Notice to Appear, thus depriving

the IJ of jurisdiction. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.

      1.     This court does not have jurisdiction to review Valenzuela’s new claim

before us that his family relationship with a police officer constitutes a particular

social group. Before the agency, Valenzuela argued only that he belonged to a

particular social group of returning Mexicans who are perceived as wealthy.

“[F]ailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust

remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear

the matter.” Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

Valenzuela asserts that he mentioned his family relationship with a police officer to

the BIA. But the mere mention of that fact is insufficient to put the BIA on notice

that Valenzuela was arguing that this relationship constitutes membership in a

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

                                           2
(issue is properly exhausted if the BIA was put on notice). The panel thus dismisses

Valenzuela’s family-based withholding claim.

      2.     The BIA did not err when it denied Valenzuela’s withholding of

removal claim based on his status as a returning Mexican who is perceived as

wealthy. As an initial matter, Valenzuela waived review of his perceived-wealth

withholding claim because his opening brief did not once mention his membership

in this group. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013).

In any event, this claimed particular social group is not cognizable. See, e.g.,

Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016). Without a valid

particular social group to account for his fear of persecution, Valenzuela’s claim for

withholding of removal must fail. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,

1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

      3.     The BIA did not err when it denied Valenzuela’s CAT claim. Here too,

Valenzuela waived review. Valenzuela’s opening brief mentions that the BIA failed

to review his CAT claim properly, but he did not specifically and distinctly argue

the claim. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.

2003). Even if it were properly before this court, Valenzuela’s CAT claim fails

because he did not present evidence that compels the conclusion that he will face

torture by the government or with its acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder,

755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

                                          3
      4.     The BIA did not err when it denied Valenzuela’s request to terminate

removal proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Valenzuela

argues that the government’s failure to specify the date, time, and place of his initial

removal hearing in his Notice to Appear (NTA) means the IJ lacked jurisdiction over

the removal proceedings against him. But this Circuit has held that “defects in an

NTA . . . have no bearing on an immigration court’s adjudicatory authority.” United

States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).

Moreover, even if a defective NTA were considered to have jurisdictional

significance, there can be no question that where, as here, the alien was later

provided with a Notice of Hearing that included the necessary information, the IJ

had jurisdiction over those removal proceedings. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913

F.3d 1158, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2019).

      DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

                                           4