Eliazar Belquir Mira Mira v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIAZAR BELQUIR MIRA MIRA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70090
Agency No. A094-825-234
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Eliazar Belquir Mira Mira, 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 by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
* 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
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mira Mira’s contentions as to the newly
proposed social group of “returning El Salvadoran citizen from the United States
who have already been the subject of violence and harm form [sic] gang members
(and guerillas) there,” because he failed to raise them before the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency).
The agency did not err in finding that Mira Mira failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
1131, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard and finding
petitioner’s proposed social group of “deportees from the United States to El
Salvador” not cognizable); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746 (9th Cir.
2008) abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081
(9th Cir. 2013) (holding that young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence is

-- 2 of 3 --

3
too loosely defined to meet the requirement for particularity).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mira Mira
otherwise failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears
in El Salvador and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a
political opinion claim failed where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence
of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals). Thus, Mira Mira’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --