Court Opinion

ID: 9409964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:01:14.130391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.580307
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

MARITZA FLORES DOMINGUEZ,                       No. 21-1394
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A202-193-388
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 17, 2023**

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

      Maritza Flores Dominguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding

of removal, cancellation of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual

      *
            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).
findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051,

1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ and

adds its own reasoning, we review both decisions. Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland,

47 F.4th 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2022). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition

for review.

      As an initial matter, Flores Dominguez raises for the first time several

issues and facts not in the record. She argues that the agency violated due process

by failing to consider “any proposed particular social groups that [she] could have

asserted membership in,” arguing that “family” could be asserted as a nexus to a

protected ground. She states that “the father of Petitioner’s child was abusive

towards her” and claims she will be tortured by “her ex partner.” Id. Because

Flores Dominguez failed to raise these arguments before the BIA, we decline to

consider them. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113–14 (2023)

(holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).

      We lack jurisdiction over Flores Dominguez’s challenges to the denial of

her cancellation application for lack of hardship to her United States’ citizen

children.     See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).     We have held that “matters of

governmental grace, such as adjustment of status and cancellation of removal

relief are discretionary judgments not subject to review.” Martinez v. Clark, 36

F.4th 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2022).       While we retain jurisdiction to review

“colorable” constitutional challenges, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,

930 (9th Cir. 2005), Flores Dominguez’s assertion that the BIA applied the wrong

                                        2                                   21-1394
legal standard in violation of her due process rights fails to reach that bar. The

BIA correctly considered whether her qualifying relative would suffer

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if she were removed. Though

Flores Dominguez believes she has shown the necessary hardship, “traditional

abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not

constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”

Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.

      We have jurisdiction over the remainder of Flores Dominguez’s claims

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Flores Dominguez’s request for asylum relief is time-

barred. She filed her asylum application ten years after entering the United States.

Her former counsel conceded before the IJ that she was subject to the one-year

bar, and Flores Dominguez did not ask to withdraw this concession.

Nevertheless, she argues that she qualified for an exception to the filing deadline

as a member of the Mendez Rojas certified class in Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, 305

F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2018). The BIA correctly rejected her class

membership claim because she has not been in DHS custody, a requirement for

both classes, and she has not otherwise shown how she qualifies. See Mendez

Rojas, 305 F. Supp. 3d at 1179. This exception is unavailable, and her asylum

application is untimely.

      The BIA also did not err in denying Flores Dominguez withholding of

removal because she has not demonstrated past persecution or a clear probability

of future persecution on a protected ground. The unfulfilled threats that Flores

                                         3                                   21-1394
Dominguez received from Luis were distressing; “[t]hough condemnable, these

threats were not ‘so overwhelming so as to necessarily constitute persecution.’”

Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting

Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995)).             Flores Dominguez

acknowledges that she only received verbal threats from Luis and was not

physically harmed. Luis also began extorting her family when she refused to be

his girlfriend.   While extortion plus threats of violence may rise to past

persecution, see Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1021 (9th Cir. 2017), Flores

Dominguez has not alleged that she herself was extorted, only members of her

family, and she has not shown that the harm occurred on the basis of a protected

ground.   Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that future

persecution is also lacking. Her family continues to reside in the same home,

they have not been contacted by Luis in over a decade, and Flores Dominguez

returned to visit her ill mother in 2016 without incident. “The ongoing safety of

family members in the petitioner’s native country undermines a reasonable fear

of future persecution.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021).

      A petitioner seeking CAT protection must show that it is “more likely than

not he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).     Because the past unfulfilled verbal threats and

harassment did not rise to the level of persecution, “it necessarily falls short of

the definition of torture.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1067. Flores Dominguez’s safe

visit in 2016 without contact from Luis indicates that she could safely internally

                                        4                                   21-1394
relocate to avoid torture. The record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s CAT

denial.

      PETITION DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                      5                                  21-1394