Cecilio Arevalo Ruano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECILIO AREVALO RUANO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-371
Agency No.
A074-668-727
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: SANCHEZ and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and DONATO, District
Judge.***
Cecilio Arevalo Ruano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a final decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his
* 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 James Donato, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-371
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. We do not address Arevalo Ruano’s claims that the IJ erred in its
adverse credibility, res judicata, and time-bar determinations because the BIA did
not reach those questions. “Where the BIA conducts its own review of the
evidence and law, rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to
the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.”
Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rodriguez v. Holder,
683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012)). In reviewing the BIA’s decision, “we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988
F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021).
2. Arevalo Ruano did not challenge before the BIA the IJ’s dispositive
determinations that his proposed particular social group is not legally cognizable
and that he failed to satisfy the burden for CAT protection. Because Arevalo
Ruano failed to exhaust any argument challenging these determinations as
required under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we may not consider them over the
government’s objection. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1114
(2023); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --