Victor Morales-Abrego v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL MORALES-ABREGO, No. 20-72564
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-902-363
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Morales-Abrego, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
applications 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 review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and we remand.
The BIA denied asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that
Morales-Abrego failed to establish a nexus to his particular social group “sibling of
Luis Morales.” Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See
Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2018) (evidence that applicant
was persecuted in retaliation for his brother’s conduct established nexus to family
as a protected ground); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir.
2009) (an asylum applicant establishes that a protected ground was “one central
reason” for persecution where the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant
absent that motive); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th
Cir. 2017) (the less demanding “a reason” standard applies to withholding of
removal claims).
To the extent Morales-Abrego raises a new particular social group in his
opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider the group because he failed to raise
it 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).
Thus, we grant the petition for review in part and remand Morales-Abrego’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims to the agency for any necessary further
2 20-72564
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part;
REMANDED.
3 20-72564