NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUSTIN NIJ-PIRIR, AKA Augustin Pirir, No. 19-70714
AKA Lorenzo Sandoval, AKA Lorenzo
Sandoval-Marroquin, Agency No. A079-541-523
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Agustin Nij-Pirir, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to terminate
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
*
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).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and we review de
novo questions of law. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Nij-Pirir
failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would
be on account of a protected ground, including a particular social group. See INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”).
To the extent the BIA declined to consider Nij-Pirir’s arguments regarding
the proposed particular social group of “successful business owners” that were
raised for the first time to the BIA, this was not error. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924
F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA did not err in declining to consider particular
social groups raised for the first time on appeal); Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I.
& N. Dec. 189, 190-91 (BIA 2018) (where an applicant raises membership in a
particular social group as the basis of her claim “she has the burden to clearly
2 19-70714
indicate the exact delineation” of the group before the IJ); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues not raised to the IJ are not properly before
the BIA on appeal).
Thus, Nij-Pirir’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Nij-Pirir does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s
determination that he failed to establish eligibility for relief under CAT, and any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to terminate. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived
challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-70714