NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALVINA ALVAREZ SANCHEZ; No. 20-73484
RICARDO JIMENEZ ALVAREZ,
Agency Nos. A201-221-987
Petitioners, A201-221-989
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Valvina Alvarez Sanchez and Ricardo Jimenez Alvarez, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion
to continue and their application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 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
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding the IJ’s
denial of their motion to continue because they did not raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931
(9th Cir. 2004) (concluding the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined”
decisions in which the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion). We reject as
unsupported by the record petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to address
relevant case law in its analysis of the motion to continue where petitioners did not
raise any argument as to that motion in their brief to the BIA, including any
contention of relevant law to consider.
The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular
social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of
2 20-73484
members who share a common immutable characteristic, (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))). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that petitioners otherwise failed to establish
that they would be persecuted 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”).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions, including whether the agency erred in finding the social group was
improperly defined by the harm suffered. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 20-73484