Court Opinion

ID: 9891798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:39.434668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:34.704182
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIANA FLORES ROCHA; et al.,                   No. 22-1269
                                                Agency Nos.
             Petitioners,                       A215-652-297
                                                A215-652-298
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Adriana Flores Rocha and her daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico,

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

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

application for asylum and Flores Rocha’s applications for withholding of removal

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

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.

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

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the

petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to 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

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

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d

877, 882–83 (9th Cir. 2021) (proposed social group of Mexican wealthy business

owners who refused extortion demands lacked particularity).

      We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether the harm suffered

rose to the level of persecution, whether the government was unable or unwilling

to protect them, and whether their future fear was objectively reasonable because

the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,

                                        2                                      22-1269
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)).

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

contention regarding nexus. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.

2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the

results they reach). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and Flores Rocha’s

withholding of removal claim fail.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Flores Rocha 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 Mexico.

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

      Petitioners’ contention that the IJ failed to advise the minor petitioner of her

potential eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status is not properly before the

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

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

Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional

claim-processing rule).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                      22-1269