N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ATIA M AR C ELA M AZAR IEGO; JUSTIN ANDR

ES M AZAR IEGO GOM EZ; R OYC E ALB ER TO DIAZ M AZAR IEGO,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72792 Age n c y Nos. A088-383-602

A208-881-556 A208-881-557
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 10, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d B R ESS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C ARD O NE, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
MAY13 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 a t 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r C a tia M arc e l a M a z arie go (M a z arie go) a nd he r two m inor sons,
native s a n d c i tiz e ns of El Sa lva dor, pe tition for re vie wof the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) a ffirm ing the Im m igrat ion Judge(IJ)’ s de nia l of the i r a p plic a tions for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts,
we will not re c ite the m he re . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition. W e re vie w “ de nia l s of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C A T re lie f for substa ntia l e vide nc e and will uphold a de nia l supporte d by

re a s ona ble , substa

ntia l,
and proba tive e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .” Ling Huang v
. Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014) (c i tation a n d quota t ion m arks
om i tte d). Unde r this sta

n da rd, the a ge nc y

de te rm inat ion m

ust be uphe l d “ unle ss the e vide n c e c om

p e ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion.” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019). W e re vie w due proc e s s c la im s in re m o va l proc e e dings de novo. Oshodi v . Holde r , 729 F.3d 883, 889 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). 1. The IJ did not de

prive M a z arie g o of he r due proc e s s right to a full a n d fa ir he aring. W e will gra

nt a pe tition on due

proc e ss grounds “ if the proc e e ding wa s so funda m e nta lly unfa i r that the a lie n wa s pre ve n te d from re a sona b ly pre se nting his
c a se .” C o lme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000) (c ita tion a nd quota tion
2m arks om itte d). To pre va il on a due proc e ss c la i m , howe ve r, “ an a lie n [m ust] show pre judic e , whic h m e ans tha

t the outc om e of the proc e e ding m ay have be e n
a ffe c te d by

the a lle ge d

viola tion.” Id. (c ita

tion om itte d). To be gin, M a z a

rie go c annot show tha

t the proc e e ding wa s funda m e nta lly unfa ir. Unlike in C

olme nar , whe re the IJ e sse ntia lly pre ve nte d the pe titione r from te stify ing, id. , the IJ he re wa s try ing to e lic it morete stim ony from M a z arie g o. Nor doe s the re c ord support M a z arie go’ s c l a im tha t the IJ’ s c om

m e nts forc e d he r
a ttorne y to “ c urta i l his e xam ination” ; rathe r, the re c ord shows tha t the IJ sim

ply
re fuse d to he ar re p e titive te stim ony . In a sim ila r ve in, M a z arie g o ha s not shown that “ the IJ ha d a

de e p -se a t e d favoritism

or a nta gonism

tha t would m ake fa ir judgm e nt im

possible .” Vargas-He rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita

tion om itte d). Although, a t worst, the IJ’ s c o m

m e nts e v inc e im patie n c e , the IJ’ s de c ision ultim a te ly c onside re d a ll issue s and doe s “ not re fle c t
any bia s or a nim osity towa

rd [M a z arie go] .” Id. Furthe r, e v e n we re we to a ssum e the IJ viola te d M a z arie go’ s due proc e ss rights, M a z arie go ha s fa ile d to show the re quisite pre

judic e . Se e C

olme nar , 210 F.3d at 971. Although M a z arie go c la im s ge ne ra lly tha t he r “ a bility to e sta blish why she fe are d re t

urning wa s signific antly

c urta ile d,” she doe s not e la borat e on what te stim ony

she would ha

ve provide d a

bse nt the IJ’ s be havior. Se e Oshodi , 729
3F.3d at 890 (“ [T] he c ritic a l que stion is whe the r the IJ’ s a c tions pre v e nte d the

introduc tion of signific an t te stim ony .” (c l e ane d up)). Inde e d, M a z a rie go te stifie d in de ta il a bout he r a lle ge d pe rse c ution by the ga n g. The re c o rd a l so doe s not support M a z arie go’ s c l a im tha t he r c ounse l wa s pre ve nte d from arguing tha

t she
wa s a m e m be r of a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of “ Sa lva dora n wom e n.” The IJ a ske d M a z arie go’ s c o unse l wha t the propose d soc ia l group wa s twic e , a nd M a z arie go’ s
c ounse l re sponde d both tim e s tha t the propose d

soc ia l group wa s he r fam ily . Thus, M a z arie go wa s not deprive d of a full a nd fa ir he aring. 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t M a z arie go wa s not ta rge te d in the pa st a

nd would not be

ta rge t e d in the future on a c c o unt of he r fa m ily
m e m b e rship. To be

e ligiblefor a sy lum , M a z a rie go m ust e sta b lish a ne xus be twe e n he r pa st or fe a

re d ha rm and a prote c t e d ground. Se e Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th C ir. 2017). TheB IA de te rm ine d tha t the ga ng’ s atte m

pts to
e xtort M a z arie go a

nd one ga ng m e m be r’ s sta te m e nt tha

t, “ If I ha d

m y m o m [in the USA] , tha

t I c ould ge t the m one y ” are m o re indic a tive of fina nc ia l m otive tha

n pe rsona l a

nim osity or a ve nde tta a ga inst he r fa m i ly . M a z a rie g o offe rs no e vide nc e to the c ontra

ry . R a t he r, she te stifie d during he r he aring tha t she did not know why the g ang m e m

be rs ta rge te d he r. M ore ove r, she a c knowle dge d in he r writte n
a sy lum a pplic a tion tha

t the ga ng wa s like ly

fina nc ia lly m otiva te d . The re c ord thus
4doe s not c om pe l a finding tha

t M a z arie go wa s ta

rge te d on a c c ount of he r fa m ily
m e m b e rship. 3. B e c a

use M a z arie go ra ise d the issue for the first tim e on a ppe a l, the B IA did not e rr whe n it de c line d to c onside r M a z arie go’ s c la im to m e m be rship in the propose d soc i a l group of “ Sa l va dora n wom e n.” As disc usse d, the re c ord doe s not support M a z arie go’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the IJ pre ve nte d

he r from c la im i ng m e m

be rship in this propose d soc ia l group a t he r he aring. And wehave c l e arly he ld tha t the B IA doe s not e rr whe n it de c line s to c onside r propose d pa rtic u la r soc ia l groups
ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Honc harov

v . Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5