Salvador Enrique Chiguila Santos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR ENRIQUE CHIGUILA
SANTOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73007
Agency No. A202-086-299
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February, 16 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Enrique Chiguila Santos (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El
Salvador, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his applications for asylum,
* 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).
FILED
FEB 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition.1
First, we do not have jurisdiction to address Petitioner’s claim that the BIA
and IJ misstated his particular social group as “members of a family owned
business” rather than “former members of a family owned business.” Before the
BIA, Petitioner did not challenge the IJ’s classification of his particular social
group as “members of a family owned business.” His passing references in his
brief to “previously being a family business owner,” were insufficient to put the
BIA on notice that he was challenging the IJ’s description of his particular social
group. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). Because
Petitioner failed to raise this argument to the BIA, we do not have jurisdiction to
address it here. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Second, we reject Petitioner’s argument that “members of a family owned
business” qualifies as a particular social group. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA and IJ’s determination that this group is not socially distinct. See Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The BIA’s conclusion
regarding social distinction—whether there is evidence that a specific society
1 Petitioner does not present any arguments challenging the denial of CAT
protection and, thus, has waived that claim. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions,
882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
recognizes a social group—is a question of fact that we review for substantial
evidence.”). The record here does not compel the conclusion that “members of a
family owned business” are recognized by Salvadoran society as distinct from
other business owners, merchants, or, more broadly, people with money. Because
Petitioner is unable to show membership in a particular social group or persecution
based on another protected category, he does not qualify for asylum and
withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
Finally, because the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s asylum and
withholding claims on the merits and did not consider the IJ’s findings related to
the one-year filing bar, we do not consider Petitioner’s challenges to those
findings. See Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1088 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A
panel may only affirm on the grounds set forth in the BIA's decision.”).
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.2
2 In light of our ruling, the motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. See
Dkt. 1. The temporary stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues.

-- 3 of 3 --