Court Opinion

ID: 9380270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 19:00:33.437224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.872493
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR MANUEL MORALES-ABREGO, No.                      20-72564

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-902-363

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Victor Manuel Morales-Abrego, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed

      *
             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).
by 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 grant

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and we remand.

      The BIA denied asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that

Morales-Abrego failed to establish a nexus to his particular social group “sibling of

Luis Morales.” Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See

Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2018) (evidence that applicant

was persecuted in retaliation for his brother’s conduct established nexus to family

as a protected ground); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir.

2009) (an asylum applicant establishes that a protected ground was “one central

reason” for persecution where the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant

absent that motive); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th

Cir. 2017) (the less demanding “a reason” standard applies to withholding of

removal claims).

      To the extent Morales-Abrego raises a new particular social group in his

opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider the group because he failed to raise

it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)

(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

      Thus, we grant the petition for review in part and remand Morales-Abrego’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims to the agency for any necessary further

                                          2                                   20-72564
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-

18 (2002) (per curiam).

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

      The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part;

REMANDED.

                                         3                                  20-72564