N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDW IN LOPEZ-R ODR IGUEZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72949 Age n c y No. A206-471-427
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 14, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd B YB E E, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C A RDONE, *** Distric t Judge
. Edwin Erwin Lope z -R odrigue z , a native an d

c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) orde r a ffirm ing theorde r of



# FIL ED MAY18 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.the i m

m igration judge(IJ) de ny ing his re que s t for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l,
and prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (C AT). Although we have jurisdic tion to re v ie w fina l orde rs of re m ova l, 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a), our jurisdic tion
e xte nds only

to c la im s tha

t ha ve be e n e xha

uste d be fore the B IA, 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(d)(1). B e c a

u se Lope z -R odrigue z fa ile d to e x ha ust his c la im s , we la c k jurisdic tion a

nd dismi ss the pe tition. 1. Lope z -R odrigue z ha s forfe ite d his a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l
c la im s. The IJ de nie d

those c la im s on a

num b e r of a lte rnative grounds, inc luding that Lope z -R odrigue z ’ s propose d soc ia l group wa s not c o gniz a ble an d he ha d fa ile d to e sta

blish a ne xus be t

we e n the c la im e d pe rse c ution a nd the soc ia l group. In this C ourt, Lope z -R odrigue z c ha l le nge s the IJ’ s c o gniz a bility finding but doe s not c onte st the ne xus de te rm ination. A la c k of ne xus is dispositive for a sy lum

and withholding of rem o v a l c la im s. Se eRie ra-Rie ra v . Ly n c h , 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th C ir. 2016). Lope z -R odrigue z ha s thus forfe ite d his a sy lum and withholding of
re m ova l c la im s by

fa iling to c ha lle nge the dispositive ne xus finding here . Se e Lope z-Vasque z v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th C ir. 2013). 2. Lope z -R odrigue z fa ile d to e xha u st his C AT c la i m

be fore the B IA. The IJ de nie d prote c tion unde r C AT be c a use Lope z -R odrigue z ha d fa i le d to te stify
c re d ibly , did not proffe r othe r e vide nc e de m onstra ting a pa rtic ula riz e d risk of
2future torture , and fa i le d to e sta blish governm e nt a c quie sc e nc e to a ny torture . B e fore the B IA, Lope z -R o drigue z a sse rte d only tha t the gove rnm e nt

wa s una ble or unwilling to prote c t him from torture , a nd the B IA found tha

t he “ d[id] not
m e aningfully dispute ” the IJ’ s fa c tua l findings or le ga l c onc lusions. Lope z R odrigue z ’ s ge ne ra l a lle gations we re insuffic ie nt to e xha ust his C AT c la im

be fore the B IA. Se eArsdi v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 925, 928–29 (9th C ir. 2011). W e thus la c k jurisdic tion to re v ie w Lope z -R odrigue z ’ s une xha uste d C AT c la im
. PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D.

3