and Submitted May 16, 2019 San Francisco, California
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals Agency No. A099-235-092
Todd Bennett (argued), El Cerrito, California, for
Williams (argued) and Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Morgan
Christen, Circuit Judges.
a petition for review, the panel held that the Board of
Immigration Appeals does not per se err when it
concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal
do not have to be entertained.
panel held that the rationales behind waiver and forfeiture
apply in the context of removal proceedings in the Executive
Office of Immigration Review, and that the Board may apply a
procedural default rule to arguments raised for the first
time on appeal. Applying that holding, the panel concluded
that the Board did not err when it declined to consider
petitioner's proposed particular social groups that were
raised for the first time on appeal.
it did not affect the resolution of the present petition, the
panel noted that it would leave it for another case to decide
what standard of review applies to the Board's decision
to invoke such default, and what showing a non-citizen must
make to the immigration judge to preserve an argument for
panel addressed petitioner's other arguments in a
concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
opinion we approve the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board)'s practice of refusing to address arguments
raised for the first time on appeal. We address the
petitioner's other arguments in a concurrently filed
Honcharov is a Ukrainian national who was admitted to the
United States in 2004 on a five-month visa. After the
Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings
in 2009, Honcharov conceded removability but requested
asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against
Torture protection. An immigration judge (IJ) held a hearing
on Honcharov's claims and asked Honcharov what social
group he was a member of that led to his persecution.
Honcharov responded "Ukrainian businessmen" and
"witness victim to crime." The IJ denied all relief
after determining that these ...