RAMIREZ DELCID V. GARLAND, No. 23-718 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR RAMIREZ DELCID, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-718 Agency No. A208-939-950 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Hector Ramirez Delcid, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Because Ramirez Delcid does not contest the BIA’s dispositive determinations that he waived challenge to the denial of asylum as untimely, that his proposed particular social group was not cognizable, and that he was ineligible for CAT protection, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Ramirez Delcid’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail. Ramirez Delcid’s contention that he is eligible for a grant of humanitarian asylum is not properly before the court because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 23-718

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.