Florentino Galeana v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLORENTINO JAIMES GALEANA, No. 19-71361
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-534-400
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: LUCERO,*** IKUTA, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Florentino Galeana (Petitioner) seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his applications for cancellation of
*
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 Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
removal, asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a) and deny the petition.1
Petitioner did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies regarding
cancellation of removal because he conceded his conviction before the IJ and did not
properly raise the issue to the BIA. Therefore, this court lacks the jurisdiction to
address the cancellation of removal claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Alvarado v.
Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2014).
Turning to the asylum claim, Petitioner missed the one-year deadline to
submit an asylum application, and substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate changed or extraordinary
circumstances justifying the delay. Petitioner admitted that the reason for seeking
asylum 12 years after arriving was to obtain work authorization, which is not a
changed or extraordinary circumstance to justify an exemption from the deadline
under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a). Petitioner also asserted rising levels of violence in
Mexico as a changed circumstance on appeal to the BIA, but failed to challenge the
IJ’s determination that Mexico’s conditions improved during the time between when
Petitioner entered the United States and his removal proceedings, so there is no basis
1
The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here.
2
for this panel to disrupt that ruling.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s decision to deny Petitioner’s
claim for withholding of removal. The agency reasonably concluded that “family
members of the Jaimes Galeana family” was not sufficiently distinct or definitive to
constitute a particular social group, nor did Petitioner establish that he would be
persecuted because of his family lineage. Petitioner was unable to offer any reason
suggesting his family members were killed because of familial status and admits that
he is now estranged from his mother, which further undermines any potential nexus.
This is more than enough to support the agency’s conclusion that his familial status
would not lead to persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports denial of protection under CAT.
Petitioner’s argument that there is generalized, widespread violence within Mexico
is insufficient to establish it is “more likely than not that he or she will be tortured”
upon return to the country. Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Petitioner has not shown he is subject to any
special risk of torture. See id. at 1051–52 (rejecting a CAT claim when petitioner
has not shown he “would face any particular threat of torture beyond that of which
all citizens of Nepal are at risk”).
Finally, this court lacks the jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of
voluntary departure. The IJ exercised discretion in denying voluntary departure, and
3
the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. “[B]ecause the BIA affirmed based on the IJ’s
discretionary denial, we [do] not have jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary
departure.” Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
4