NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSALIA LOZANO MACIEL; V. L. N.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-484

Agency Nos.

A215-906-042

A215-906-043

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 1, 2024**

San Francisco, California

Before: HURWITZ and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District 

Judge.

***

Rosalia Lozano Maciel and her minor daughter, V.L.N., (collectively, 

“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of 

* 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 Brian M. Morris, Chief Judge for the District of 

Montana, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 3 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-484

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of the denial by an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

Our review is limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied. SantiagoRodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). Where, as here, the BIA 

adopts and affirms portions of the IJ’s decision, “we treat the incorporated parts of 

the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Id. (quoting Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 

(9th Cir. 2008)). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual 

findings for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th 

Cir. 2021).

1. The BIA did not err in finding that Petitioners waived any claim that 

V.L.N.’s application stated an independent claim for asylum, withholding, or CAT 

relief. Petitioners’ attorney informed the IJ that V.L.N.’s claim was “based 

completely and wholly on” Lozano Maciel’s application. A party is bound by the 

statements of their attorney. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634 

(1962); see also Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, 

Petitioners provided no evidence to the IJ about any particular risks to young 

women and teenaged girls. Instead, on appeal to the BIA and this court, they rely 

solely on extra-record evidence to assert such a claim. The BIA thus did not err in 

finding that Petitioners waived any independent claim V.L.N. may have had by 
3 23-484

failing to raise it to the IJ. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 

2019).

2. Before this court, Petitioners do not raise any argument that the BIA 

erred in finding that they forfeited any objections to the IJ’s relocation findings.1

They have thus forfeited review of those findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 

94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Fed. R. App. Proc. 28(a)(6)). In any 

event, the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioners forfeited any objections to the 

IJ’s relocation findings. See Honcharov, 924 F.3d at 1297. Because Petitioners do 

not argue that they faced past persecution and have provided no evidence that the 

Mexican government sponsors persecution of women, relocation is presumed 

reasonable, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(3), and the agency did not err in 

denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioners have

failed to show that it is more likely than not they will be tortured if returned to 

Mexico. The BIA did not err in determining that they forfeited any argument 

regarding the risk of torture to “deportees to Mexico,” because they failed to 

mention any such risk before the IJ. See Honcharov, 924 F.3d at 1297. And even 

1 Petitioners argue the BIA erred because it only adopted the IJ’s findings as to past 

persecution and suggested the past persecution finding was dispositive. We do not 

reach this issue because the agency’s relocation findings are an independently 

sufficient basis to deny the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Knezevic v. 

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004).
4 23-484

on appeal to the BIA and in their petition for review, they rely exclusively on 

“generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico,” which “is insufficient to 

meet [the CAT] standard.” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 

2010). Thus, the agency did not err in denying their applications for CAT relief.

PETITION DENIED.