Edgar Alfredo Correa-Vallejo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ALFREDO CORREA-VALLEJO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71557
Agency No. A200-884-166
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 21, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: R. NELSON, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Correa Vallejo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration
judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 18-71557
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review as to the denial of asylum and
deny the petition as to the denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection.
When the BIA adopts some of the IJ’s reasoning and adds its own further
analysis, we review both decisions. Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th
Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “We review the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT relief for ‘substantial evidence.’” Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054,
1057 (9th Cir. 2010)). “In order to reverse the BIA, we must determine ‘that the
evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also
compels the further conclusion’ that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for
obtaining relief.” Id. (correction in original) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)).
1. The IJ granted the government’s motion to pretermit Correa Vallejo’s
asylum claim because the asylum application arrived after the one-year deadline and
there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying the late filing. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(2)(B). Because Correa Vallejo failed to challenge the IJ’s timeliness
determination, the BIA deemed any challenge waived on appeal. Correa Vallejo’s
failure to challenge the IJ’s dispositive determination about timeliness amounts to a
failure to exhaust the asylum claim before the BIA and deprives this court of
jurisdiction to consider it. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013)

-- 2 of 4 --

3 18-71557
(per curiam). We therefore dismiss the petition as to Correa Vallejo’s asylum claim.
2. The BIA concluded that Correa Vallejo was ineligible for withholding of
removal because, even assuming he “established a particular social group based on
his and his wife’s family, he did not meet his burden to establish a nexus between
any past or feared future harm and his membership in the group.”
The BIA did not fail to mention “potentially dispositive evidence” in reaching
its conclusion, Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011), and Correa Vallejo
does not dispute the IJ’s finding that he “still has immediate family members
residing in Mexico” who “have not had any problems of any kind.” See Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743–44 (9th Cir. 2008) (that a “family member
has remained unharmed” in home country is substantial evidence that petitioner
“lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution based on family membership”),
overruled on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc).
Nothing in the record compels the contrary conclusion that Correa Vallejo’s
membership in his family, or his connection to his wife’s family, was or would be
“a reason” for any persecution. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360
(9th Cir. 2017); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007)
(threats “at best” supported—but did not compel—conclusion that petitioner would
more likely than not be persecuted). We therefore deny Correa Vallejo’s petition as

-- 3 of 4 --

4 18-71557
to his application for withholding of removal.
3. The BIA determined that Correa Vallejo was ineligible for CAT relief, and
substantial evidence supports that conclusion. Correa Vallejo’s generalized
evidence of violence and crime in Mexico does not compel the conclusion that he,
in particular, is more likely than not to be tortured there. See Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). We therefore deny Correa
Vallejo’s petition as to his application for CAT protection.
PETITION DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 4 of 4 --