NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL RAMIREZ-ARELLANO, No. 15-71805
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-245-204
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Raul Ramirez-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
*
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).
cancellation of removal, and denying his motion for a continuance. Our
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
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Ramirez-Arellano did not 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
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))); see also Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (proposed social group
“returning Mexicans from the United States” lacked particularity). Thus, Ramirez-
Arellano’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Arellano’s contentions regarding
asylum, CAT relief, and the IJ’s denial of a continuance because he did not raise
those contentions to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
2 15-71805
Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings
below).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Ramirez-Arellano did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
to a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-23 (2022) (review of any
judgment regarding the granting of enumerated relief is barred by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71805