Court Opinion

ID: 9891814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:46.366202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:39.299851
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                                                                         OCT 18 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIANELA DEL ROSARIO                           No. 22-401
HENRIQUEZ LUNA; EMERSON                         Agency Nos.
EDUARDO RIVERA                                  A208-380-611
HENRIQUEZ; MAURA ELIZABETH                      A208-380-613
RIVERA HENRIQUEZ,
                                                A208-380-612
             Petitioners,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 16, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Marianela Del Rosario Henriquez Luna and two of her children, Maura

Elizabeth Rivera Henriquez and Emerson Eduardo Rivera Henriquez, all natives

      *
             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 citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

decision denying Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1          We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusions that Petitioner

was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum

or withholding of removal, a petitioner must establish that her protected ground be

“at least one central reason” for her persecution (asylum), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), or that her protected ground be “a reason” for her persecution

(withholding of removal), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C). Petitioner failed to establish

nexus between her past or feared harm and her proposed particular social group,

“women in El Salvador.” Instead, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

finding that Petitioner feared generalized gang violence. See Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the agency did not err in determining

that Petitioner failed to establish nexus, the Court denies the petition for review as

to asylum and withholding of removal. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077,

1081 (9th Cir. 2016).

1
 All uses of “Petitioner” in the singular refer to Marianela Del Rosario Henriquez
Luna. Her children join this petition for review as derivative asylum applicants.

                                        2                                    22-401
      2. The IJ denied Petitioner’s application for CAT relief, and Petitioner

failed to exhaust this claim in her appeal to the BIA. Exhaustion, as required by 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), is a “claim-processing rule.” Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598

U.S. 411, 416–19 (2023). The Court will deny a petition for failure to exhaust an

issue below if a party properly raises the failure to exhaust. See Fort Bend County

v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544,

550 (9th Cir. 2023). Petitioner failed to challenge the IJ’s determination that she

was not eligible for CAT relief before the BIA, and Respondent properly raises the

failure to exhaust here. Consequently, the Court denies the petition for review of

Petitioner’s application for CAT relief.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           3                               22-401