Court Opinion

ID: 9908446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 19:01:00.546192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:11.986902
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 8 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATIANA FLORES-ASUZENA,                         No. 22-1717
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-879-100
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted December 6, 2023**
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Tatiana Estefany Flores-Asuzena, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing

her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and

      *
             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).
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petition.

      Before the agency, Flores-Asuzena claimed to fear persecution on the basis

of her membership in the proposed particular social group of “Salvadoran women

opposed to cooperation with gangs.” The immigration judge denied relief on the

grounds that (1) the proposed group is not cognizable because it lacks particularity

and social distinction and (2) Flores-Asuzena did not establish any nexus between

her feared persecution and her membership in that proposed group. The Board

affirmed on both grounds.

      Before this court, Flores-Asuzena argues that her proposed group is

cognizable. But she mentions the Board’s finding of a lack of nexus only in

passing, and she presents no argument challenging it. Her failure to adequately

address that issue is sufficient reason to deny her petition. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Flores-Asuzena suggests in passing that she faces persecution on the basis of

her political opinion and religion. She did not raise either theory before the Board.

Because those theories were not exhausted, we do not consider them. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        2                                    22-1717