NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIRIDIANA NATERA MONRREAL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-612

Agency No.

A204-536-935

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 8, 2024**

San Francisco, California

Before: R. NELSON, FORREST, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Viridiana Natera Monrreal, a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, is a native and 

citizen of Mexico. She petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(BIA) decision. The BIA dismissed her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 13 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-612

decision denying her applications for asylum, 1 withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding 

that the BIA’s decision “that denied . . . withholding of removal[] and protection 

under CAT . . . was a final order of removal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252). We review 

the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial 

evidence. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the latter 

standard, the “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the decision not to withhold removal. 

First, Monrreal did not show a clear probability of future persecution because she 

was a member of the Jehovah’s Witness religion.

2

 Monrreal testified that she was 

never harmed for her beliefs while living in Mexico.

3

 And there is no evidence that

1 The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum on waiver grounds, and Monrreal does 

not challenge that finding on appeal. 

2 Although Monrreal originally applied for withholding of removal on both religious 

and particular social group grounds, she has waived any challenge to the BIA’s 

denial of withholding of removal on particular social group grounds where her 

opening brief only discusses her status as a Jehovah’s Witness. See MartinezSerrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that 

are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

3 Nor does she challenge the BIA’s determination that she failed to establish past 

harm in Mexico. 
3 23-612

her family members, who are still in Mexico, have ever been threatened or harmed 

for being Jehovah’s Witnesses. “[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution is 

weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the 

petitioner’s home country are not harmed.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094

(9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Mexican 

government would be willing and able to protect Monrreal’s free exercise of 

religion. Monrreal points to a State Department report that indicates that some 

Jehovah’s Witnesses were prevented from practicing, but that same report shows 

that the Mexican government worked to remedy that private discrimination,

including by ordering the reintegration of displaced Jehovah’s Witnesses “into their 

original communities” with state-guaranteed security. The report supports the BIA’s 

determination that the Mexican government is willing and able to help Monrreal if 

the speculative harms she identifies were to occur. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 

976 F.3d 1062, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2020) (efforts to protect certain groups, even if 

imperfect, were substantial evidence of a country’s ability and willingness to protect

those groups).

2. Monrreal’s CAT claim also fails. Monrreal had the burden of showing 

that it was “more likely than not that . . . she would be tortured if removed to” 

Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). She has not carried that burden. Instead, in just 
4 23-612

over a page, she makes passing references to the relevant standard without 

explaining how the BIA erred in finding that Monrreal had not established a 

particularized risk of future torture. By failing to adequately develop her CAT claim 

with argument, she has waived it. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259. Even if 

not waived, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Monrreal did not 

meet her burden to establish that the Mexican government would acquiesce to her 

being tortured, for the reasons described above. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 

F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part 

to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).

The petition for review is DENIED.