Maria Elena Araujo-Buleje v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ELENA ARAUJO-BULEJE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70486
Agency No. A200-877-702
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2018**
Portland, Oregon
Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,*** District
Judge.
Maria Elena Araujo-Buleje, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
* 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 Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. As the parties
are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
Even assuming that Araujo-Buleje was credible and that her asylum
application was timely, we lack jurisdiction to consider Araujo-Buleje’s claim that
she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on account of her
membership in the particular social group of her family. Araujo-Buleje argues that
the BIA erred in deeming her family claim abandoned, but fails to cite any place in
the record where she raised it to the BIA. Because Araujo-Buleje failed to exhaust
her family claim before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Arsdi v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held that
failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust
remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear
the matter.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
In addition, Araujo-Buleje has waived any challenge to the BIA’s rejection
of her claim that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on account
of her membership in the particular social group of pharmacists who refuse to
participate in drug trafficking by failing to argue the issue in her brief to this court.
See Diego v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1005, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that issues
not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” in an opening brief are waived

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(citation omitted)). Likewise, Araujo-Buleje has waived any challenge to the
BIA’s determination that she abandoned her claim under the Convention Against
Torture.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.

-- 3 of 3 --