Ramos-Paiz v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INMER ANIBAL RAMOS-PAIZ; et al., No. 22-1153 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A208-176-331 A208-176-333 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 18, 2023** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Inmer Anibal Ramos-Paiz1 and his son, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying their application for asylum, and denying Ramos-Paiz’s * 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). 1 The clerk will amend the docket to change petitioner’s name to Inmer Anibal Ramos-Paiz, in accordance with the agency decision, filed at Docket Entry No. 9. application for withholding of removal. 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. Because Ramos-Paiz failed to establish any nexus at all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to harm rising to the level of persecution because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Ramos-Paiz did not argue before the BIA that the IJ violated due process, and as such, he did not exhaust the contention and we decline to address it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule). Petitioners’ 2 22-1153 claim that the BIA violated due process by failing to provide a reasoned opinion is unsupported by the record. Petitioners’ request for remand to seek prosecutorial discretion is denied. See Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2016) (government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion not subject to judicial review, and remand not warranted based on changes in policy). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 22-1153