Juan Medellin v. Todd Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN PACHECO MEDELLIN, AKA No. 20-70683 Enrique A. Lopez,

Agency No. A205-024-753 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KOH and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Juan Pacheco Medellin is a native and citizen of Mexico. He petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, the “Agency”) denial of his

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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.

“[O]ur review ‘is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, and “review the BIA’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, meaning we may reverse only if the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s.” Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023).

1. Medellin, citing Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), argues that the IJ did not have jurisdiction over his case because his notice to appear (“NTA”) was invalid as it did not list a time and date for his initial immigration hearing. But this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing Pereira has “no application” to the question of the immigration court’s jurisdiction); United States v. Bastide- Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that “the failure of an NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction”).

2. Medellin claims that the IJ erred in finding him ineligible for asylum. But Medellin failed to exhaust this argument before the BIA. 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 Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024) (observing that the exhaustion requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule that is mandatorily enforced if a party properly raises it, and a noncitizen “must put the BIA on notice of the challenge” to exhaust a claim).

3. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s determination that Medellin did not show a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground.1 Medellin fails to point to evidence in the record that compels reversal of the Agency’s determination that he failed to establish a nexus between his claimed fear of harm and his proposed particular social groups, “the Pacheco Medellin family” and “repatriated Mexican men who oppose gang violence.”2 And while Medellin argues that the IJ held him to an improperly high standard when analyzing his withholding of removal claim, Medellin failed to exhaust this claim. We therefore may not consider it. See Suate-Orellana, 101 F.4th at 629.3

4. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s denial of CAT protection. Medellin does not provide evidence that compels the conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). The IJ determined that Medellin failed to submit evidence that he would be specifically targeted for torture. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s determination. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico” that was not particular to petitioners was insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT protection).

PETITION DENIED.4 political opinion would be imputed on him, and the BIA deemed this claim waived. We may not consider Medellin’s unexhausted argument on appeal. See Suate- Orellana, 101 F.4th at 629.