Oscar Antonio Rodriguez- Artero v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-
ARTERO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70037
Agency No. A206-086-902
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70037
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, Rodriguez-
Artero 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 of 2 --