NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 No s

. 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 APPEALS2 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. Santiago

Rodriguez 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 a gency’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

fin ding that Petitioners waived any independent claim V.L.N. may have had by3 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 i n 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, t he BIA did not err in finding that Petitioners forfeited any objections to the
IJ’s relocation findings. S ee 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 a gency’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 “deporte es 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 a gency’s relocation findings are an independent ly 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 a gency did not err in denying their application s for CAT relief.

PETITION DENIED

.