Court Opinion

ID: 9948223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 18:01:37.754832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:20.085688
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 6 2024
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE ALBERTO ALAS,                             No. 22-1485
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A029-153-560
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 4, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Jorge Alberto Alas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) decision denying his application for

asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

      *
             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).
      Generally, we review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social

group is cognizable. Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1199 (9th Cir. 2023).

But “[t]he [Board]’s conclusion regarding social distinction—whether there is

evidence that a specific society recognizes a social group—is a question of fact that

we review for substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d

1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020)). Where, as here, the Board adopts the decision of the IJ,

we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the Board’s. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d

1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

      Mr. Alas argues that he “was targeted because of his status as a business

owner.” The government correctly argues that this claim is unexhausted. Santos-

Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419 (2023) (holding the exhaustion requirement

is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule); Fort Bend County v. Davis, 139 S. Ct.

1843, 1849 (2019) (explaining that a court must enforce a claim-processing rule “if

a party properly raises it” (cleaned up)). Moreover, because Mr. Alas does not argue

that the proposed social groups raised to the IJ and Board are cognizable, he waives

any further review of those groups. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–

80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening

brief are waived). Even if Mr. Alas had properly raised those proposed social groups

before this court, substantial evidence nonetheless supports the IJ’s determination

that Mr. Alas’s proposed groups are not socially distinct in Salvadoran society. Cf.

                                        2                                  22-1485
Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (holding that substantial evidence supported the

determination that the record lacked evidence establishing “people who report the

criminal activity of gangs to police” are “perceived or recognized as a group by

society in Guatemala”).1

      The petition for review is DENIED.

1
 Mr. Alas argues that the IJ erred in determining that his testimony was not credible.
But even assuming the credibility of his testimony, his failure to exhaust and
forfeiture of his proposed social groups prove fatal to his petition.

                                        3                                   22-1485