RONALD ANTONIO MENDOZA- MIJANGO, AKA Ronald Mendoza v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD ANTONIO MENDOZA-
MIJANGO, AKA Ronald Mendoza,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74014
Agency No. A097-878-239
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Mendoza-Mijango, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
FEB 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 4 --

and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition in
part and deny it in part.
It is undisputed that Mendoza-Mijango failed to file for asylum within one
year of entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Mendoza-
Mijango argues that his untimely filing should be excused due to the ineffective
assistance of immigration counsel who led Mendoza-Mijango to believe that an
asylum application was timely filed and pending. But he failed to comply with the
three-part process required to make out such an excuse. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(D);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iii). While strict compliance with this process is not
always necessary, Mendoza-Mijango’s argument fails. He has never identified his
former counsel nor provided the circumstances or dates of the consultancy. See
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010).
Mendoza-Mijango alternatively contends that immigration consultant fraud
should excuse his untimely application, but this argument was not raised before the
BIA and therefore has not been administratively exhausted. See Alvarado v.
Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014). We lack jurisdiction to consider
unexhausted issues. Id.
Mendoza-Mijango has also failed to show eligibility for withholding of
removal. He argues that his life would be threatened if he returned to El Salvador
2

-- 2 of 4 --

because members of the MS street gang believe he is a member of a rival gang.
Due to this mistaken belief, Mendoza-Mijango argues that he belongs to a
protected social group and has had a political opinion imputed to him. See
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
A criminal gang is not a protected social group. Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511
F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2007). Although Mendoza-Mijango credibly testified that
he was never a member of any street gang, to the extent that he argues that the
mistaken belief of members of the MS gang creates a protected social group, he
has failed to define that group with adequate particularity. See id.; Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Mendoza-Mijango’s political opinion argument also fails. He presented no
evidence to the immigration judge showing that the MS gang holds a specific
ideology or that members of the MS gang imputed to him any particular political
belief. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the portion of Mendoza-
Mijango’s petition seeking withholding of removal.
Mendoza-Mijango failed to exhaust his claim seeking protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Although he included this claim in his notice of
appeal to the BIA, his failure to argue it in his briefing deprives this court of
3

-- 3 of 4 --

jurisdiction. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en
banc). We therefore dismiss this portion of his petition.
DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.
4

-- 4 of 4 --