United States v. 2020-01-03 | 13-72229 | JOSE ALEGRIA-BERIA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE CARLOS ALEGRIA-BERIA, AKA
Jose Carlos Alegria-Barillas,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 13-72229

Agency No. A078-192-957

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 31, 2019
**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Carlos Alegria-Beria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

*
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 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 13-72229
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de
novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent
that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA correctly held that Alegria-Beria’s twenty-one-year late application
for asylum was untimely. The record does not compel the conclusion that Alegria-
Beria established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse its
untimeliness. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). To the extent Alegria-Beria raises
new arguments concerning extraordinary circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to
consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
In connection with his application for withholding of removal, the agency
did not err in determining that Alegria-Beria failed to establish membership in a
cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016)
(in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must

3 13-72229
‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227,
237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Alegria-Beria’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alegria-Beria failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at
1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for
CAT relief).
We reject Alegria-Beria’s contention that the agency applied incorrect legal
standards.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.