Erick Henriquez-Mejia v. Todd Blanche

── Erick Henriquez-Mejia v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERICK GEOVANNI HENRIQUEZ-MEJIA, No. 20-70342 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-512-501 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2026** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and HOLCOMB,*** District Judge. Petitioner Erick Geovanni Henriquez-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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 John W. Holcomb, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Henriquez-Mejia challenges the agency’s denial of his application for withholding of removal and the BIA’s refusal to address, in the first instance, his proposed particular social group. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 737 (9th Cir. 2025). We review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Withholding of removal is proper if the petitioner’s “life or freedom would be threatened” in the country of removal “because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Eligibility for withholding of removal requires a nexus between persecution or feared persecution and “one of five protected statutory grounds.” Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016). The agency did not err in declining to address Henriquez-Mejia’s membership-in-a-social-group claim in the first instance. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he Board may apply a procedural default rule to arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”). An applicant for withholding 2 of removal “must clearly indicate on the record before the Immigration Judge what enumerated grounds [he] is relying upon in making [his] claim.” Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (citation modified). “Where an applicant raises membership in a particular social group as the enumerated ground that is the basis of [his] claim, [he] has the burden to clearly indicate the exact delineation of any particular social group(s) to which []he claims to belong.” Id. (citation modified). Henriquez-Mejia did not clearly indicate to the IJ that he planned to rely upon his membership in a particular social group. See id. Instead, Henriquez-Mejia checked the box on his application that he was seeking withholding of removal based upon his political opinion—not on his membership i