HECTOR PELICO-HUOX V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-72467 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR PELICO-HUOX, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72467 Agency No. A087-595-504 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Hector Pelico-Huox, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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 agency’s factual findings and we review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Pelico-Huox’s contentions regarding asylum because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pelico-Huox failed to establish that the harm he experienced and fears in Guatemala was or will be 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.”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). Thus, Pelico-Huox’s withholding of removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Pelico-Huox’s contentions regarding the cognizability of his proposed social groups. 2 14-72467 Finally, we reject Pelico-Huox’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his case. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 116062 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-72467
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
