NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE ARMIN PASQUETT FONSECA, No. 23-2439 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-087-184 v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2024** Portland, Oregon

Before: HAMILTON, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.***

Jorge Armin Pasquett Fonseca is a citizen of Mexico. He petitions for review

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an

* 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 David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

“When the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision de novo, ‘our review is limited to

the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’”

Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Garcia v. Wilkinson,

988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021)). “We review purely legal questions de novo,

and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.” Perez-Portillo v.

Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022). Under this “highly deferential”

standard, the agency’s factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Salguero Sosa v.

Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 590

U.S. 573, 584 (2020)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

1. Pasquett Fonseca has not challenged the IJ’s finding that he failed to

establish an exception that would toll the one-year filing deadline for his asylum

application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Where, as here, the government has raised a

petitioner’s failure to comply with the statutory exhaustion requirement, see 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we may not review unexhausted arguments. See Santos-

Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 416–21 (2023) (holding that § 1252(d)(1) is a

non-jurisdictional, mandatory claim-processing rule that is subject to waiver and

2 23-2439 forfeiture); Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541, 549 (2019) (“A claim-

processing rule may be ‘mandatory’ in the sense that a court must enforce the rule

if a party properly raises it.” (cleaned up)). Pasquett Fonseca also forfeited the

issue when he did not raise it before this court. Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th

908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022).

2. Because Pasquett Fonseca never articulated his political opinion before

the IJ, the BIA did not err in declining to address the issue. See Honcharov v. Barr,

924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (holding that the BIA did not err

in declining to consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal).

3. The agency did not err in finding Pasquett Fonseca ineligible for

withholding of removal because his proposed particular social group of “returning

Mexicans perceived as being wealthy and having knowledge of customs and

processes” is not cognizable. Pasquett Fonseca’s argument to the contrary is

foreclosed by our precedents. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229

(9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e hold that the proposed group of ‘imputed wealthy

Americans’ is not a discrete class of persons recognized by society as a particular

social group.”); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th

Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that “returning Mexicans from the United States”

is not a cognizable particular social group).

3 23-2439 4. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Pasquett Fonseca’s

claim for CAT relief. Pasquett Fonseca argues that the Mexican government is

unable and unwilling to control corrupt officials and organized criminal groups.

But “a general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent

crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.” Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d

829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). And Pasquett Fonseca does not offer any evidence to

establish a particularized risk of harm to him. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d

1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A] speculative fear of torture is insufficient to satisfy

the ‘more likely than not’ standard.”); Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (finding

“generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to [a

petitioner] and is insufficient” to support a CAT claim).

PETITION DENIED.

4 23-2439