Juan Figueroa-De Dios v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN FIGUEROA-DE DIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72294
Agency No. A096-235-070
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 14, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REISS,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Juan Figueroa-De Dios, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks
withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and deferral of removal
* 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 Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the
District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
pursuant to the Convention against Torture (CAT). The parties are familiar with
the facts, and so we do not recount them here. We dismiss the petition for review
for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner raises one issue on appeal, that the immigration judge (IJ) and
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overlooked his claim of persecution based on
his indigenous ancestry. We lack jurisdiction to review this claim because we have
jurisdiction only when the petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Figueroa has not exhausted his administrative remedies here
because he did not raise this issue to the BIA. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203,
1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“Petitioner . . . exhausted only those issues he
raised and argued in his brief before the BIA.”). In his brief to the BIA, he argued
only that he is a member of a particular social group related to witnessing crime
and that he has a well-founded fear of returning to Mexico because he witnessed
the murder of his cousin and those responsible for the murder had sent him death
threats. Figueroa did not even mention his indigenous ancestry before the BIA and
has not raised on appeal any exhausted issue that we might have jurisdiction to
review.
Although he references the IJ and BIA’s denial of CAT protection, Figueroa
presents no arguments to us on why he is entitled to CAT protection or how the IJ
and BIA erred in denying him this protection. Figueroa has, therefore, waived any

-- 2 of 3 --

3
challenge to the denial of CAT protection. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152,
1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --