Court Opinion

ID: 9940226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 18:01:16.189314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.591495
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 13 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIRIDIANA NATERA MONRREAL,                      No. 23-612
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A204-536-935
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted February 8, 2024**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: R. NELSON, FORREST, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Viridiana Natera Monrreal, a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, is a native and

citizen of Mexico. She petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) decision. The BIA dismissed her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s

      *
             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).
decision denying her applications for asylum, 1 withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding

that the BIA’s decision “that denied . . . withholding of removal[] and protection

under CAT . . . was a final order of removal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252). We review

the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial

evidence. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the latter

standard, the “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”            8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition.

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the decision not to withhold removal.

First, Monrreal did not show a clear probability of future persecution because she

was a member of the Jehovah’s Witness religion.2 Monrreal testified that she was

never harmed for her beliefs while living in Mexico.3 And there is no evidence that

1
 The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum on waiver grounds, and Monrreal does
not challenge that finding on appeal.
2
 Although Monrreal originally applied for withholding of removal on both religious
and particular social group grounds, she has waived any challenge to the BIA’s
denial of withholding of removal on particular social group grounds where her
opening brief only discusses her status as a Jehovah’s Witness. See Martinez-
Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that
are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
3
 Nor does she challenge the BIA’s determination that she failed to establish past
harm in Mexico.

                                        2                                   23-612
her family members, who are still in Mexico, have ever been threatened or harmed

for being Jehovah’s Witnesses. “[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution is

weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the

petitioner’s home country are not harmed.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094

(9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

      Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Mexican

government would be willing and able to protect Monrreal’s free exercise of

religion. Monrreal points to a State Department report that indicates that some

Jehovah’s Witnesses were prevented from practicing, but that same report shows

that the Mexican government worked to remedy that private discrimination,

including by ordering the reintegration of displaced Jehovah’s Witnesses “into their

original communities” with state-guaranteed security. The report supports the BIA’s

determination that the Mexican government is willing and able to help Monrreal if

the speculative harms she identifies were to occur. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr,

976 F.3d 1062, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2020) (efforts to protect certain groups, even if

imperfect, were substantial evidence of a country’s ability and willingness to protect

those groups).

      2.     Monrreal’s CAT claim also fails. Monrreal had the burden of showing

that it was “more likely than not that . . . she would be tortured if removed to”

Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). She has not carried that burden. Instead, in just

                                        3                                    23-612
over a page, she makes passing references to the relevant standard without

explaining how the BIA erred in finding that Monrreal had not established a

particularized risk of future torture. By failing to adequately develop her CAT claim

with argument, she has waived it. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259. Even if

not waived, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Monrreal did not

meet her burden to establish that the Mexican government would acquiesce to her

being tortured, for the reasons described above. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828

F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part

to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).

      The petition for review is DENIED.

                                        4                                    23-612