Court Opinion

ID: 9374323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:46.73871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.528132
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RITA GUADALUPE ROBLES NEVAREZ,                  No.    20-72506

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-968-277

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Rita Guadalupe Robles Nevarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

      *
             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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s determination regarding social distinction.

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de

novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

statutes and regulations. Id. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

      In her opening brief Robles Nevarez does not contest, and therefore forfeits

the BIA’s determination that she waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum.

See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). We do not

address Robles Nevarez’s contentions as to her credibility, past persecution, or

whether she has a well-founded fear of persecution because the BIA did not deny

relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th

Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds

relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Robles Nevarez did not establish

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular social

group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members

who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and

                                          2                                  20-72506
(3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243

(proposed social group not cognizable because of the absence of society-specific

evidence of social distinction). Thus, Robles Nevarez’s withholding of removal

claim fails.

      In her opening brief Robles Nevarez does not contest, and therefore forfeits,

the BIA’s determination that she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT

protection. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, Robles Nevarez’s

CAT claim fails.

      To the extent Robles Nevarez contends the IJ erred in denying her

application for voluntary departure, we lack jurisdiction to consider the contention

because she did not apply for this relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to

the agency).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         3                                   20-72506