Court Opinion

ID: 9365293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 18:00:40.637326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.557716
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTA CIFUENTES RODRIGUEZ DE                     No.   17-72330
LOPEZ,
                                                 Agency No. A208-598-513
                Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Marta Cifuentes Rodriguez de Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

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

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

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

      *
             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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v.

Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the determination that Cifuentes Rodriguez de

Lopez failed to establish she was or would be persecuted by gang members on

account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.

2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by

theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”);

see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership

in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that

“persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”).

      Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Cifuentes

Rodriguez de Lopez failed to establish membership in her proposed particular

social group of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their

relationship.” See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016)

(applicant must demonstrate “membership in that particular social group” (quoting

Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 223 (BIA 2014))).

      Because Cifuentes Rodriguez de Lopez does not challenge the finding of no

political opinion, this issue is waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d

                                           2                                     17-72330
1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a

party’s opening brief are waived).

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Cifuentes Rodriguez de

Lopez’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of her asylum and withholding

of removal claims. 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, Cifuentes Rodriguez de Lopez’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because

Cifuentes Rodriguez de Lopez 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

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

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3                                     17-72330