Mariza Eley Macias- Rodriguez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIZA ELEY MACIAS-
RODRIGUEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-940
Agency Nos.
A209-236-978
A209-236-979
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mariza Eley Macias-Rodriguez and her daughter, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
* 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
JAN 23 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-940
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
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 deny the petition for review.
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) (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 Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243
(proposed particular social group not cognizable given absence of society-specific
evidence of social distinction). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, we do
not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013). To the extent petitioners address the merits of their CAT claim, their
contentions are not properly before the court because they failed to raise them

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-940
before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies
required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023)
(section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).
Petitioners’ contentions regarding a proposed family-based particular social
group and a due process claim are also not properly before the court because they
failed to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Santos-
Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 417-19.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --