NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TINORA ELIZABETH MORALESGAMEZ, AKA Dinora Elizabeth Morales 

Gamez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-73337 

Agency No. A206-019-005 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 3, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,*** District 

Judge.

Tinora (“Dinora”) Elizabeth Morales-Gamez, a native and citizen of El 

 

* 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 Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Morales failed to address the BIA’s denial of her application for CAT relief 

in her opening brief. Therefore, she waived this claim on appeal and we dismiss 

the petition as to it. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).

As to Morales’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, we 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and 

remand for the BIA’s reconsideration in light of intervening authority.

After Morales presented her applications for relief to the BIA, we held that

“witnesses who testify against gang members” and “persons taking concrete steps 

to oppose gang members” may constitute particular social groups for purposes of 

asylum and withholding of removal. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084–85 

(9th Cir. 2014); Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(en banc). We also recently clarified that the nexus standard is less demanding in 

the withholding of removal context as compared to the asylum context. BarajasRomero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).

In agency proceedings, the BIA and the immigration judge found that 

Morales was persecuted by gang members who were motivated by extortion. The 

BIA declined to remand the case for the immigration judge to consider Pirir-Boc
3 

and Henriquez-Rivas, reasoning that “[Pirir-Boc] is distinct in that the particular 

social group proposed consisted of individuals taking concrete steps to oppose 

gang membership in gang authority. It did not involve gang extortion as in the 

current case.” The BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to remand, and 

failed to properly consider the similarities between Pirir-Boc, Henriquez-Rivas, 

and the instant case. The BIA did not consider the evidence showing that Morales

was persecuted, or may have a well-founded fear of future persecution because her 

actions went beyond merely refusing to cooperate with gangs. Rather, Morales 

openly reported the gang members’ extortion activities to local police. The record 

shows that Morales reported the extortion to local police three times—on October 

2, 2012, October 10, 2012, and February 2, 2013. Though Morales did not testify 

in court, the record shows that the gang members were aware she was talking to 

the police, placing her in a social group very much like that of “witnesses who 

testify against gang members,” which we recognized as a particular social group in 

Henriquez-Rivas. See Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1092 n.14 (“We by no means 

intend to suggest that the public nature of Henriquez-Rivas’ testimony is essential 

to her eligibility for asylum.”). “The concrete and open steps [Morales] took in 

opposition to the gang may fall within the framework of Henriquez-Rivas.” See 

Pirir-Boc, 750 F.3d at 1084–85. 

Morales may thus potentially qualify either for asylum, or for withholding of 
4 

removal under the more relaxed nexus standard announced in Barajas-Romero. We 

grant Morales’s petition for review in part and remand her applications for asylum 

and withholding of removal to allow the BIA to reconsider Morales’s petition in 

light of Pirir-Boc, Henriquez-Rivas, and Barajas-Romero. See, e.g., Perez-Guzman 

v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2016) (remanding for the BIA to reconsider the 

petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection in light 

of, inter alia, Henriquez-Rivas).

We lack jurisdiction to consider any new particular social groups proposed 

by Morales. See Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080. We reach this conclusion without 

prejudice to Morales’s right to raise claims of persecution against any such social 

groups on remand, particularly in light of intervening case law, such as Rios v. 

Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1127–28 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that “the family remains 

the quintessential particular social group” even under the BIA’s new framework 

for social group membership established in Matter of M-E-V-G, 26 I & N. Dec. 

227 (BIA 2014)).

The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and GRANTED and 

REMANDED in part.