Court Opinion

ID: 9899446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 19:00:35.364745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:30.549050
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      FILED
                                                                         NOV 16 2023
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICA GRANADOS MARQUEZ,                           No. 22-1643
                                                  Agency No.
                Petitioner,                       A202-131-997
     v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted November 14, 2023**
                                  Pasadena, California

Before: PARKER,*** BYBEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

          Petitioner Erica Granados Marquez (“Ms. Granados”) petitions for review of

a Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) decision dismissing her appeal of an

immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

*
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
      The parties agreed and the panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable
for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), (f).
***
      The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo whether a petitioner

exhausted her administrative remedies, see Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins,

456 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review for substantial evidence the

Board’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for

review.

      First, we decline to consider Ms. Granados’s unexhausted asylum and CAT

claims. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th

Cir. 2023). The immigration judge denied Ms. Granados’s asylum claim as

untimely because Ms. Granados’s counsel conceded that no exceptions to the one-

year filing deadline applied. The immigration judge also denied Ms. Granados’s

CAT claim because she did not show “consent or acquiescence of the Mexican

government.” Ms. Granados never addressed either issue in her appeal to the

Board. She thus failed to exhaust her asylum and CAT claims. Sola v. Holder, 720

F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“A petitioner’s failure to raise an

issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust . . . .”).

      Second, substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of Ms. Granados’s

withholding of removal claim. Ms. Granados asserted that she was a member of the

particular social group “Mexican women who are unable to leave their

                                          2                                  22-1643
relationships with former partners under the threat of death.” Ms. Granados

testified that a man who lived in her town in Mexico kidnapped and assaulted her

in 2002. She was never “in a relationship with” this man, and she never heard from

him again. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Ms.

Granados is not a member of her asserted particular social group because she did

not show she was unable to leave a relationship. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d

1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020) (recognizing that in addition to “establishing the

‘existence’ of a cognizable social group,” there is “a separate requirement [of]

establishing ‘membership’ in the group” (quoting Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,

1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016))).

      We decline to consider any other issues not raised in the opening brief or

addressed by the Board. Hui Ran Mu v. Barr, 936 F.3d 929, 936 n.12 (9th Cir.

2019) (explaining that a petitioner waived any challenge to an issue she did not

raise in her opening brief); Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004)

(per curiam) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds

relied upon by that agency.”).

      DENIED.

                                       3                                  22-1643