Court Opinion

ID: 9363886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 21:00:34.45403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.677217
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANETH ADILENI ESTRADA RIOS;                    No.    18-72818
MELANY GUADALUPE GALLARDO
ESTRADA; NATALY WILEIDY                         Agency Nos.       A208-195-307
GALLARDO ESTRADA,                                                 A208-195-308
                                                                  A208-195-309
                Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                           Submitted January 13, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Yaneth Estrada Rios (“Estrada Rios”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

      *
             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).
dismissing her appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Melany Guadalupe Gallardo Estrada and

Nataly Wileidy Gallardo Estrada, Estrada Rios’s children and derivative

beneficiaries of her application, also petition for review of the BIA’s decision. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed without an

opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 919 (9th

Cir. 2004). We review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Ridore v.

Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). We review claims of due process

violations de novo. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.

2008). We deny the petition for review.

1.    To prevail on a due process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that the

proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from

reasonably presenting [her] case.” Lopez v. INS, 775 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1985); see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that petitioner

must show error and prejudice to establish due process violation). Estrada Rios

has not shown such fundamental unfairness. She argues that the IJ did not “apply

regulations which benefitted” her, but she fails to identify the regulations the IJ

allegedly failed to apply. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th

Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed

                                           2
abandoned.”). She also disagrees with how the IJ applied the applicable law to the

evidence, but she has demonstrated neither error nor prejudice on the IJ’s part and

thus fails to establish a due process violation. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,

424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

      Estrada Rios’s argument that the BIA’s summary affirmance violated her

due process rights also fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i); Falcon Carriche v.

Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850–52 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the BIA’s streamlined

decision did not violate due process).

2.    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Estrada Rios’s

applications for asylum and withholding of removal based on the IJ’s

determination that Estrada Rios failed to show the requisite nexus between any

past or feared future harm and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by

criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus

to a protected ground.”). The IJ found “no particular social group into which”

Estrada Rios would fall. Estrada Rios does not challenge this finding and does not

assert that any past persecution or feared future persecution is on account of any

other protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1231(b)(3)(A).

      Because the lack of a nexus to a protected ground is fatal to Estrada Rios’s

asylum and withholding claims, see Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081

                                          3
(9th Cir. 2016), we need not consider the IJ’s additional finding that the harm

Estrada Rios experienced and feared did not rise to the level of persecution.

3.    Estrada Rios does not make any arguments to support her challenge to the

agency’s denial of CAT protection and, thus, fails to meaningfully challenge the

agency’s decision. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015)

(explaining that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s brief are

waived).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           4