Court Opinion

ID: 9394187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 17:01:48.368693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.774349
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                            FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            MAY 12 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ROXANA MARICELA GONZALEZ                         No.   22-305
VELASQUEZ; DAYANA ANELISSE
CHAVEZ GONZALEZ                                  Agency Nos. A208-976-144
                                                             A208-976-145
              Petitioners,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted May 10, 2023**
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, FLETCHER, and IKUTA, 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).
      Roxana Marciela Gonzalez Velasquez seeks review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ).

The IJ denied her applications for asylum (on which her minor child Dayana

Anelisse Chavez-Gonzalez is listed as a beneficiary), withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for review.

      Gonzalez Velasquez does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she is

not a member of her proposed particular social group of “romantic partners who

are unable to leave the relationship,” thereby forfeiting a challenge to the BIA’s

determination that she failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution

and a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80

(9th Cir. 2013); Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Gonzalez

Velasquez failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection based on her fear that

her former romantic partner Omar will torture her upon her return to El Salvador

with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. The record shows

that Gonzalez Velasquez continued to live in El Salvador for two years after

leaving Omar, and Omar did not contact her or her family after they moved within

                                          2
El Salvador nearly ten years ago. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1148

(9th Cir. 2021).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3