Court Opinion

ID: 9891802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:41.339275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:34.707897
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

ALVARO E. AVALOS GUTIERREZ,                     No. 22-1985
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A201-102-522
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

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

      Alvaro E. Avalos Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the

legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the

extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes

and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir.

2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at

1241. We deny the petition for review.

      The record does not compel the conclusion that Avalos Gutierrez established

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application.

See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court

retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-

year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and extraordinary

circumstances); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2022) (“As a

general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)). Thus, Avalos Gutierrez’s asylum claim fails.

      As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not err in concluding that Avalos

Gutierrez failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group.

See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate

membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the

group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic,

                                         2                                   22-1985
(2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in

question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)));

see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (particular social

group of “individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed

to be wealthy” not cognizable). Thus, Avalos Gutierrez’s withholding of removal

claim fails.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Avalos Gutierrez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      To the extent Avalos Gutierrez asserts ineffective assistance of counsel and

that the IJ violated his right to due process, these contentions are not properly

before the court because he failed to raise them 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).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                    22-1985