Court Opinion

ID: 9865562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:00:42.520889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:56.105812
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLIDY LEMUS PERALTA; et al.,                    No. 22-1493
                                                Agency Nos.
             Petitioners,                       A208-261-050
                                                A208-261-051
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Glidy Lemus Peralta and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of

Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

denying petitioners’ application for asylum, and Lemus Peralta’s applications for

      *
             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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,

1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); see

also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,

standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground).

      The BIA did not err in declining to consider petitioners’ contentions

regarding a political opinion and proposed particular social groups that were raised

for the first time to the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir.

2019) (BIA did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first time on

appeal). We do not consider these claims because the BIA did not decide the

issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). We also do not consider

petitioners’ contentions as to whether the harm suffered rose to the level of

persecution because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground. See id. Thus,

                                        2                                     22-1493
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

      Because Lemus Peralta failed to establish any nexus at all, she also failed to

satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,

846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

      Because Lemus Peralta does not contest the BIA’s determination that she

waived challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Petitioners’ contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over

their proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th

1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice

to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and

8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                   22-1493