ALAN HERNANDEZ-VILLA, AKA Guadalupe Hernandez-Villa v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAN HERNANDEZ-VILLA, AKA
Guadalupe Hernandez-Villa,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71177
Agency No. A201-179-222
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alan Hernandez-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de
* 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
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71177
novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent
that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider contentions as to social groups that
Hernandez-Villa raised for the first time in the opening brief. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
The agency did not err in finding Hernandez-Villa failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of
removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --