ANTONIO GONZALEZ-MORALES V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 21-70471 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 12 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO GONZALEZ-MORALES, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-70471 Agency No. A208-836-843 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: BRESS and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge. Petitioner Antonio Gonzalez-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) * 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 Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We deny the petition. I. Withholding of Removal The BIA did not err in rejecting Gonzalez-Morales’s application for withholding of removal. Gonzalez-Morales fails to demonstrate that “Mexican repatriating men in fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom because of perceived wealth as persons returning from US” is a protected social group. See Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019). Additionally, as the BIA noted, Gonzalez-Morales’s “fear of criminality in Mexico does not establish membership in a particular social group.” See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”). II. Asylum and CAT We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s requests for asylum and CAT relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction, 1 Gonzalez-Morales does not properly challenge the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal in the opening brief to this court. Thus, we deem this issue waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). 2 requiring a petitioner to “exhaust[] all administrative remedies available . . . as of right . . . .” See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004), aff’d Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Gonzalez-Morales’s concession of ineligibility for asylum protection and failure to raise and argue his CAT and asylum claims in his brief to the BIA indicate a failure to administratively exhaust those claims under § 1252(d)(1). Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that a petitioner is “deemed to have exhausted only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA”). PETITION DENIED. 3
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.
