NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTINA DOREY SERRANO 

VAZQUEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72218 

Agency No. A078-532-429 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 7, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: KELLY,*** M. SMITH, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Martina Dorey Serrano-Vazquez, a citizen of Mexico, seeks 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal 

* 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 Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

from the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part. 

The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here. 

Suffice it to say that in January 2014, with two previous unlawful entries into the 

United States, Petitioner sought admission without valid entry documents. 

Pursuant to a Notice to Appear (NTA), Petitioner was charged with inadmissibility. 

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She conceded her removability and applied for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The basis for her claims is 

membership in a particular social group. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the BIA’s decision except where it explicitly adopts the IJ’s 

opinion. Plancarte v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2021). We review 

legal questions de novo. Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020). 

But we review the factual findings that underlie the BIA’s decision for substantial 

evidence. Plancarte, 9 F.4th at 1151. We defer to the agency’s findings “unless 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992); 

Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2021).

DISCUSSION
3 

A. Exhaustion

Petitioner argues that, under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), her

NTA is invalid because it does not specify the date and time of the proceeding in 

accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Accordingly, she argues that the immigration 

court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Not having been raised before 

the BIA, this issue is unexhausted. According to Petitioner, she was not required 

to exhaust this issue because the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira was not 

released until after her briefing before the BIA. This is incorrect: Petitioner filed 

her brief before the BIA on February 21, 2019, and the Court decided Pereira on 

June 21, 2018. Petitioner’s failure to exhaust thus bars our review, and we must 

dismiss this claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676–78 (9th Cir. 2004).

B. Asylum and Withholding of Removal

Petitioner challenges the denial of her asylum and withholding of removal 

claims at large, but she does not address the agency’s finding that she lacked a 

well-founded fear of future persecution because of changed circumstances. 

Petitioner only mentions changed circumstances when reciting the legal standard 

for defeating a presumption of well-founded fear. This is insufficient. Fed. R. 

App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Crime Just. & Am., Inc. v. Honea, 876 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th 

Cir. 2017). Petitioner necessarily waives any challenge to this finding. Honea, 

876 F.3d at 979.
4 

Moreover, the IJ’s conclusion that she lacks a well-founded fear of future 

persecution is supported by substantial evidence given the lack of contact between 

Petitioner and her ex-husband for decades, which is dispositive of her asylum and 

withholding of removal claims. Petitioner’s last contact with her former husband 

was over 20 years ago, and he lives “some three days’ travel from the town where 

[Petitioner] would reside if she returns to Mexico.” Given our disposition, it is 

unnecessary to reach the merits of Petitioner’s arguments concerning particular 

social group membership. See Hussain, 985 F.3d at 642. 

C. Protection Under the Convention Against Torture

When reviewing a claim for CAT relief, the BIA must provide its reasons 

and demonstrate that it has properly considered all factors. Ornelas-Chavez v. 

Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006). This includes consideration of 

country conditions in the record, so “[t]he failure of the IJ and BIA to consider 

evidence of country conditions constitutes reversible error.” Aguilar-Ramos v. 

Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3) (2021). 

This is because country conditions alone can satisfy a CAT applicant’s burden. 

Aguilar-Ramos, 594 F.3d at 705. Here, the IJ and the BIA did not mention the 

country conditions in the record. Because we cannot assume that the BIA 

considered evidence it does not discuss, we must remand. Etemadi v. Garland, 12 

F.4th 1013, 1026 (9th Cir. 2021).
5 

The petition for review is DIMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and 

REMANDED IN PART.