OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-ARTERO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-70037 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR ANTONIO RODRIGUEZARTERO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70037 Agency No. A206-086-902 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Oscar Antonio Rodriguez-Artero, 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 and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed * 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). by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. The BIA found that Rodriguez-Artero’s proposed social group of Salvadorian bus drivers was not cognizable. In his appeal to this court, RodriguezArtero raises only arguments about the cognizability of the social group of former El Salvadorian bus drivers. We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Artero’s newly proposed social group because he did not raise it in his appeal to the BIA. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner exhausts “only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA”). Apart from proposing a new social group, Rodriguez-Artero does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s dispositive cognizability finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Rodriguez-Artero’s asylum and withholding claims. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 17-70037

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.