Jose Guevara-Renderos; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUEVARA-RENDEROS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70917
Agency Nos. A070-934-207
A208-976-213
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guevara-Renderos and his minor son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70917
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group
is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr,
947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Guevara-Renderos failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular social
group, “[t]he applicant must ‘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))); see also Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243
(petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of
society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, Guevara-Renderos’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
To the extent Guevara-Renderos raises a new proposed particular social
group in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70917
claims not presented to the agency).
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of Guevara-
Renderos’s application for CAT protection or minor petitioner’s applications for
relief, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
We do not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding the particularly serious
crime bar because the agency did not decide the issue. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359
F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions that the IJ failed to
follow precedent, fully analyze their claims, or advise Guevara-Renderos of the
availability of relief, because they did not raise these issues to the BIA. See
Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ due process contentions
that the BIA failed to fully analyze their claim, adequately explain its decision, or
otherwise erred in the analysis of their claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --