Fernando Gimenez Carazo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO GIMENEZ CARAZO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1645
Agency Nos.
A209-820-707
A209-820-711
A209-820-712
A209-820-713
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Gimenez Carazo, Jenifer Cristiane Knabben, and their two
children, natives and citizens of Brazil, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
* 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
JAN 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1645
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, and Gimenez
Carazo’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
review.
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to IJ’s determination that they did not establish an exception to excuse
the untimely asylum application, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Petitioners’ contention that their
untimely asylum application warranted an exception is not properly before the
court because they failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v.
Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional
claim-processing rule). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Gimenez Carazo does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that
his proposed particular social group lacked social distinction or that he otherwise
failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, we do not address them. See
Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, Gimenez Carazo’s withholding of
removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1645
Because Gimenez Carazo does not challenge the agency’s CAT denial, we
do not address it. Id.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --