NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRMA GERONIMO-CARRILLO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71108 

Agency Nos. A208-205-565 

A208-205-566 

MEMORANDUM0F

*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 12, 2021*1F

*

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,**2F

*

Judge.

Irma Geronimo-Carrillo3F

1

(Geronimo), an indigenous Guatemalan woman, 

* 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of 

International Trade, sitting by designation.

1 While Petitioner’s asylum application, the Immigration Judge (IJ) proceedings 

and the Petition for Review in front of this court all refer to the spelling of 

FILED

JAN 14 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of her request for asylum. She asks us to

remand the question of whether her asserted particular social group, indigenous 

Guatemalan women, is cognizable. We deny the petition for review in part and 

dismiss in part.4F

2

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s decision 

that an applicant has not established eligibility for asylum for substantial evidence. 

Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum. Geronimo failed to 

demonstrate the requisite nexus between the harm she suffered and a statutorily 

protected ground as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

We also decline to remand Geronimo’s petition for consideration of her 

asserted particular social group. The BIA and the IJ assumed, without deciding,

that the group was cognizable and concluded the record was insufficient to 

demonstrate Geronimo was eligible for asylum. Neither this court nor the BIA is 

Petitioner’s last name as “Jeronimo,” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA),

and therefore the clerk of this court, referred to her as “Geronimo.” The Petitioner 

did not file a motion to correct the caption; therefore, we use the spelling recorded 

by the BIA, but note the discrepancy here for the sake of clarity.

2 The government moved the court to take judicial notice of the April 9, 2019,

decision by the IJ. Resp’t. Mot. for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 20 (Jan. 31, 2020). 

Granting the motion is unnecessary and therefore, it is denied. The decision 

appears in the papers submitted to this court. See Pet. for Review, ECF No. 1 (May 

8, 2019). 
3 

required to decide an issue that is not dispositive to the outcome of a case. INS v. 

Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25–26 (1976). 

We lack jurisdiction to hear Geronimo’s United Nations Convention Against 

Torture claim. She did not raise it before the BIA following the IJ’s April 9, 2019,

decision, and she mentions it only in a passing comment without argument in her 

opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 

that a petitioner must raise an issue before the proper administrative forum if they 

wish to preserve the issue for appeal).

DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.