Court Opinion

ID: 9895012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:37.423558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:57.873214
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1434      Doc: 19         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1434

        ROSA ANARIBA; L.Y.O.A.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eric R. Suarez, SANABRIA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Silver Spring,
        Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
        General, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of
        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1434        Doc: 19        Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Rosa Anariba and her daughter, L.Y.O.A., ∗ natives and citizens of Honduras,

        petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Anariba’s

        appeal from the immigration judge’s oral decision denying her applications for asylum,

        withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We

        deny the petition for review.

               As to Anariba’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the

        immigration judge ruled that Anariba failed to prove that the past persecution she alleged,

        or the future persecution she feared, were on account of a statutorily protected ground. The

        Board found no clear error in this factual determination, which was dispositive of these

        applications for relief. See generally Madrid-Montoya v. Garland, 52 F.4th 175, 179 (4th

        Cir. 2022) (discussing the nexus element and explaining that, “[i]f an applicant fails to

        satisfy the nexus requirement, she cannot obtain asylum or withholding of removal”); see

        generally also Garcia v. Garland, 73 F.4th 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2023) (observing that “[t]he

        core of an applicant’s eligibility for withholding of removal is the nexus between

        persecution and a protected status, a link that requires showing that the applicant’s status

        is at least one central reason for the risk of harm that he faces” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). However, because Anariba’s brief in this court does not address the agency’s

        “no-nexus” ruling, she has forfeited appellate review of this part of the Board’s order. See

        Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023)

               ∗
                   L.Y.O.A. was a derivative asylum applicant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1434         Doc: 19       Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        (explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in

        the party’s briefs); see also Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th

        Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by

        failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned

        up)).

                Anariba’s brief does raise substantive arguments related to the agency’s denial of

        her claim for relief under the CAT. However, upon review of the record, we conclude that

        the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8

        U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief,

        see Chicas-Machado v. Garland, 73 F.4th 261, 272 (4th Cir. 2023). That is, we are

        satisfied that “a[ ] reasonable adjudicator would [not] be compelled to conclude” that the

        Honduran government would consent to or acquiesce in Anariba’s future mistreatment by

        a private actor. Chicas-Machado, 73 F.4th at 272 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Anariba (B.I.A. Mar. 23,

        2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                PETITION DENIED

                                                      3