NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN FRANCISCO-PEDRO, No. 23-3778

Agency No.

Petitioner, A200-630-149 v.

MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 11, 2025**

Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, IKUTA, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Marvin Francisco-Pedro’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal because, among other reasons, he failed to establish a nexus between a gang’s threats and his proposed particularized social groups. On appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Francisco-

*

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). Pedro argued only that the IJ’s decision cited Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), which has since been vacated. See Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021). The BIA dismissed his appeal because the IJ’s nexus holding did not rely on the since-vacated case and because Francisco-Pedro did not otherwise challenge the IJ’s nexus holding. Francisco-Pedro now petitions for review of that decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).

We deny the petition. The IJ’s nexus holding did not rely on the since-vacated case. Francisco-Pedro failed to otherwise challenge the IJ’s nexus holding before the BIA, so the BIA deemed the issue waived. Before this court, Francisco-Pedro does not challenge the agency’s nexus holding or the BIA’s waiver holding. Thus, he has failed to exhaust and forfeited any challenge to the agency’s nexus determination. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that issues waived before the BIA are unexhausted); Martinez- Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues not briefed on appeal are forfeited). That nexus holding is dispositive of Francisco-Pedro’s asylum and withholding claims. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097–98 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION DENIED.1 1 Francisco-Pedro’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 4, is denied. The temporary stay of removal is lifted.

2 23-3778