Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS AMADO VALENCIA- No. 24-3052 VALENCIA et al., Agency Nos. Petitioners, A240-261-323 A220-960-273 v. A220-960-274 A220-960-275 TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and LEE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District Judge. Petitioner Carlos Amado Valencia-Valencia, his wife Katherine Portocarrero- Rios, and their two minor children M.P. and L.P. challenge the Board of Immigration * 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 David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal. They petition for review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Our review is limited to those grounds explicitly relied upon by the [BIA].” Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016)). “Where the BIA writes its own decision, as it did here, we review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Id. at 1075–76 (quoting Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012)). “[T]he BIA is entitled to look to the brief for an explication of the issues that petitioner is presenting to have reviewed,” and a failure to include an issue in one’s brief to the BIA constitutes waiver. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207–08 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The Court reviews de novo the BIA’s determination that an issue was waived. Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019). And “[a] panel may only affirm on the grounds set forth in the BIA’s decision.” Diaz Reynoso, 968 F.3d at 1088. 1. The Government argues that Petitioners’ waiver of dispositive issues before the BIA is determinative here. The Government is correct. See Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207–08. The BIA did not err when it determined that Petitioners had waived their ability to challenge certain dispositive issues on appeal. This is because Petitioners 2 proposed a cognizable particular social group (“PSG”) (or a different protected ground of their eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal) for the first time on appeal to BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“[T]he Board did not err when it declined to consider [the petitioner’s] proposed particular social groups that were raised for the first time on appeal.”)). 2. Additionally, Petitioners’ opening brief in this Court did not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s findings on the two new PSGs they described—i.e., (1) a “person taking concrete steps to oppose gang activity and gang persecution” and (2) “victims of gang violence and persecution.” They had previously waived the ability to challenge the IJ’s PSG determination by omitting any such challenge from their briefing to the BIA. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012). This Court cannot now review the dispositive issues that were waived before the BIA. Id.; see also Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014). Petitioners also waived their CAT claim because they did not meaningfully challenge the agency’s finding that the Colombian government would not acquiesce to any future torture. Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the BIA’s holding. The Petition is DENIED. The motion to stay removal (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied. 3