MARTIN SANABRIA-RAMIREZ, AKA Juan Vasquez-Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN SANABRIA-RAMIREZ, AKA
Juan Vasquez-Ramirez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72667
Agency No. A200-245-096
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
FILED
DEC 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Martin Sanabria-Ramirez (“Sanabria-Ramirez”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order dismissing
his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) ruling denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Because this court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we
dismiss the petition for review.
Section 1252(d)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code provides that “[a] court
may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all
administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” This court has held “that
§ 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and therefore generally bars us, for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in
administrative proceedings below.” Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004). “A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general
challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of
the appeal.” Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 873 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)).
1. Sanabria-Ramirez failed to exhaust his claim that his application for asylum
should be considered despite the fact that he failed to meet the filing deadline.
Generally, an alien must apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the United
- 2 -

-- 2 of 4 --

States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(2). Although Sanabria-Ramirez
arrived in the United States in 2005, he did not apply for asylum until 2013. The IJ
found that Sanabria-Ramirez was ineligible for asylum because he filed outside of the
deadline. Sanabria-Ramirez did not specifically appeal this issue to the BIA. Because
Sanabria-Ramirez did not exhaust this claim, this court is without jurisdiction to
decide his argument that his application for asylum should be considered due to
changed circumstances.
2. Sanabria-Ramirez also failed to exhaust his claims for asylum and
withholding of removal, as presented to this court, based on membership in a
particular social group. In his proceedings before both the IJ and the BIA, Sanabria-
Ramirez argued for asylum and withholding of removal based on an imputed political
opinion. He argues for the first time in this appeal that he should be granted asylum
and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group.
Because Sanabria-Ramirez has failed to exhaust these claims, we lack jurisdiction to
decide whether asylum and withholding of removal should be granted on this basis.
3. Sanabria-Ramirez also failed to exhaust his claim for protection under the
CAT. Although the IJ found that Sanabria-Ramirez was not entitled to protection
under the CAT, he did not specifically appeal this finding to the BIA. Therefore,
- 3 -

-- 3 of 4 --

Sanabria-Ramirez has failed to exhaust this claim, and we lack jurisdiction to consider
it.
PETITION DISMISSED.
- 4 -

-- 4 of 4 --