Court Opinion

ID: 9892146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 18:00:44.614918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:58.533099
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALICIA BENITEZ VALENCIA; JOSE                   No. 22-311
VAZQUEZ BENITEZ; DULCE                          Agency Nos.
VAZQUEZ BENITEZ; JAZMIN                         A206-269-342
VAZQUEZ BENITEZ,                                A206-269-343
                                                A206-269-345
             Petitioners,                       A206-269-344
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 17, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Alicia Benitez Valencia and her three children (“Petitioners”), natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision of the Board of 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).
Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of the denial by an Immigration

Judge (“IJ”) of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions

de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988

F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition.

      Before the BIA, Petitioners argued only that the IJ erred by ignoring their

credible testimony that they feared going back to Mexico due to gang violence. To

establish a claim for asylum or eligibility for withholding of removal, applicants

must show past or feared persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding of removal).

Asylum and withholding of removal are not available to “victims of indiscriminate

violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.” Delgado-

Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioners failed to show

that a statutorily protected ground was the basis for any past or feared harm.

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners

are not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.

      Petitioners did not challenge at the BIA the IJ’s findings regarding their

particular social group, their membership in such group, or its connection to past or

feared persecution. Accordingly, they did not exhaust their administrative remedies

                                        2                                    22-311
as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Accordingly, we do not consider those

claims. Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023); cf. Santos-

Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 416 (2023) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

is not jurisdictional but is a mandatory claims-processing rule).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                 22-311