Case Name: Sandra del Carmen LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-29
Citations: 606 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 09-73862
Parties: Sandra del Carmen LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
Sandra del Carmen LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73862.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 27, 2015.
Filed May 29, 2015.
Peter D. De Bruyn, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, GIL, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sandra del Carmen Lopez-Gonzalez petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") of her appeal from the decision by an Immigration Judge ("U") denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, grant it in part, and remand for further proceedings.
1. Because Lopez-Gonzalez did not address her CAT claim in her opening brief, it is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). We therefore deny the petition insofar as it seeks review of the denial of the CAT application.
2. In dismissing the asylum and withholding of removal applications, the BIA simply concluded that Lopez-Gonzalez "failed to establish a nexus" to a "cognizable particular social group" because, "at a minimum," the social group in which she claimed membership lacked "the required 'particularity.' "
3. At the time it decided this case, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court's decisions in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.2010), and Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), clarifying the particularity and social visibility required to find a social group cognizable for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal, or its own recent decisions on those requirements, Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). In Perdomo, we explained that "the size and breadth of a group alone does not preclude a group from qualifying as . a [particular] social group." 611 F.3d at 669. In Henriquez-Rivas, we held that social visibility requires only "that the shared characteristic, generally be recognizable by other members of the community," or that "members of the proposed group would be perceived as a group by society." 707 F.3d at 1088-89 (internal quotation marks omitted). We further held that there are multiple perspectives from which such visibility may be evaluated, including — and perhaps most importantly — that of the persecutor. Id. at 1089-90.
4."In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency." Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). In dismissing Lopez-Gonzalez's appeal, the BIA relied entirely on its rejection of her social group claim. Because Perdomo, Henriquez-Rivas, Matter of M-E-V-G- and Matter of W-G-R- post-dated that dismissal, the BIA did not analyze the social group claim under the standards established in those cases. As we have done previously, see, e.g., Maldonado-Valle v. Holder, 581 Fed.Appx. 678 (9th Cir.2014), we therefore remand to the BIA to "reconsider its determinations that the particular social group[ ] offered . [is] not cognizable under the INA," Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1117 (9th Cir.2013), and, after such reconsideration, to consider "any issues remaining in the case," Andia, 359 F.3d at 1184,
PETITION DENIED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).