Santiago CLAUDIO-GUADARRAMA, aka Tomas Claudia, aka Tomas Claudio, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: April 20, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Katherine S. Fischer, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Santiago Claudio-Guadarrama, 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 application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Claudio-Guadarrama does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination of ineligibility for asylum and denial of CAT relief. See 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Claudio-Guadarrama failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced, or fears he will experience, was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
The agency did not err in determining that Claudio-Guadarrama’s proposed particular social group, “returning Mexicans from the United States perceived to have money,” was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’ ” (citation omitted)); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (individuals “returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be wealthy” does not constitute a particular social group (alterations in original)); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning Mexicans from the United States” does not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Claudio-Guadarrama’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any new proposed particular social groups because Claudio-Guadarrama failed to raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.