Court Opinion

ID: 9839945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:01:14.463718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:11.945956
License: Public Domain

FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            SEP 14 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA IDALIA TOBAR-DE LINARES;                     No.   20-72667
STEPHANIE SARAI LINARES-TOBAR,
                                                  Agency Nos.        A201-920-817
              Petitioners,                                           A201-920-818

 v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted September 12, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      Rosa Idalia Tobar-De Linares,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing her

appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denials of asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, “the BIA summarily

affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action.”

Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citation

omitted).

      We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denials of asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief, Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025,

1028 (9th Cir. 2019), affirming “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary,” Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669,

1677 (2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Because the parties are familiar

with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.

We deny the petition for review.

                                           I

      1
         Tobar-De Linares is the mother of Stephanie Sarai Linares-Tobar, who was
a minor at the time of the underlying removal proceedings in this case, and
therefore is listed only as a derivative beneficiary of Tobar-De Linares’s asylum
request.
                                           2
      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Tobar-De

Linares did not establish the required nexus for asylum or withholding of removal.

To meet the nexus requirement, a noncitizen must show that her protected ground

was “a reason” (withholding of removal) or “one central reason” (asylum) that she

has been or will be harmed. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357–58

(9th Cir. 2017) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A), (C)).

      Here, however, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the

gang members who targeted Tobar-De Linares did so in furtherance of a criminal

enterprise. The record does not compel the conclusion that any protected ground

was “a reason” or “one central reason” that the gang members targeted her. See id.

                                          II

      Because Tobar-De Linares did not raise her CAT-protection claim before the

BIA or in her opening brief, we decline to consider it and deny this portion of the

petition. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023)

(declining to consider a claim that the petitioner failed to exhaust before the BIA);

Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (deeming an

argument not developed in an opening brief forfeited).

      DENIED.

                                           3