Antonio Gonzalez-Morales v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO GONZALEZ-MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70471
Agency No. A208-836-843
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: BRESS and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.
Petitioner Antonio Gonzalez-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
* 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We deny the petition.
I. Withholding of Removal
The BIA did not err in rejecting Gonzalez-Morales’s application for
withholding of removal. Gonzalez-Morales fails to demonstrate that “Mexican
repatriating men in fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom because of
perceived wealth as persons returning from US” is a protected social group. See
Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019). Additionally, as the
BIA noted, Gonzalez-Morales’s “fear of criminality in Mexico does not establish
membership in a particular social group.” See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground.”).
II. Asylum and CAT
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s requests for asylum and CAT
relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction,
1 Gonzalez-Morales does not properly challenge the BIA’s denial of cancellation of
removal in the opening brief to this court. Thus, we deem this issue waived.
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a
brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
requiring a petitioner to “exhaust[] all administrative remedies available . . . as of
right . . . .” See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004), aff’d
Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
Gonzalez-Morales’s concession of ineligibility for asylum protection and failure to
raise and argue his CAT and asylum claims in his brief to the BIA indicate a
failure to administratively exhaust those claims under § 1252(d)(1). Abebe v.
Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that
a petitioner is “deemed to have exhausted only those issues he raised and argued in
his brief before the BIA”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --