Court Opinion

ID: 9688087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:01:28.07934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:55.872551
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DE JESUS RIVAS-BARRERA; et                No. 22-793
al.,                                            Agency Nos.
                                                A209-238-238
             Petitioners,                       A209-238-239
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Maria De Jesus Rivas-Barrera and her son, natives and citizens of El

Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

      *
             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).
their application for asylum and Rivas-Barrera’s applications for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d

785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in its determination that petitioners waived challenge to

the IJ’s determinations regarding past persecution, cognizability of their proposed

particular social groups, and internal relocation. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d

1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA’s waiver determination).

Petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of these issues are not properly before the

court because they failed to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

(exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v.

Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-

jurisdictional claim-processing rule). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to

petitioners’ asylum claim and Rivas-Barrera’s withholding of removal claim.

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding nexus and whether their fear of future persecution was

objectively reasonable. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.

                                         2                                     22-793
2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the

results they reach).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Rivas-Barrera failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                    22-793