Court Opinion

ID: 9941052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 19:00:53.563001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:11.292615
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            FEB 15 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE PULIDO HERNANDEZ; IRMA                      No.   22-1638
HERNANDEZ,
                                                 Agency Nos.
              Petitioners,                       A088-601-027
                                                 A089-670-634
 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted February 13, 2024**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.***

      Jose Pulido Hernandez and his wife, Irma Hernandez, natives and citizens of

      *
             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).
      ***
             The Honorable Robert J. Lasnik, District Judge for the Western
District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order

affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied them asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We

have jurisdiction to consider their legal challenge under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D),

and deny the petitions for review.

      Pulido and Hernandez challenge the agency’s denial of withholding of

removal, arguing that they were denied due process when the agency failed to

apply Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and related BIA

precedent, in analyzing their proffered particular social group.1 Pulido and

Hernandez did not raise this argument to the BIA, and thus failed to satisfy the

administrative exhaustion requirement imposed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). See Tall

v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008). Their due process argument is

therefore forfeited.

      Even if we construe Pulido and Hernandez’s due process argument as

challenging the merits of the agency’s analysis of their membership in a cognizable

particular social group and alleged fear of future persecution on account thereof,

      1
        In their petitions for review, Pulido and Hernandez do not challenge the
denial of their asylum or Convention Against Torture claims. Any such claims are
therefore forfeited. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022).
                                          2
their claims fail.2 The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s analysis as to Pulido

and Hernandez’s proffered particular social group. Pulido and Hernandez do not

explain why analyzing social distinction in relation to the State of Michoacan

would affect the IJ’s conclusion, and Pirir-Boc does not require the state-specific

analysis they propose. See 750 F.3d at 1084. Nor did the BIA err in affirming the

IJ’s conclusion that Pulido and Hernandez did not show a well-founded fear of

future persecution on account of a protected ground. Pulido and Hernandez do not

meaningfully challenge this conclusion on appeal, and have thereby forfeited any

such challenge. See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2022).

Even had they not, however, the IJ correctly understood their testimony to

establish a fear of generalized crime and violence rather than demonstrating a well-

founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v.

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

      PETITIONS DENIED.

      2
       Although Pulido and Hernandez did not raise these issues to the BIA, the
BIA addressed them in its opinion and we “may review any issue addressed on the
merits by the BIA.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018).
                                           3