Court Opinion

ID: 4325530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-29 20:00:55.428584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:47:06.037984
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 29 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISANTA HERNANDEZ PARRA, et al.,               No.    17-72674

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A206-910-654
                                                                  A206-910-968
 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney             MEMORANDUM*
General,

                Respondent.

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

                           Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before:      SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges

      Crisanta Hernandez Parra and her granddaughter, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

      *
             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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed

to establish a nexus between past or future harm and a protected ground, including

membership in a particular social group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010); 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”) (emphasis in original). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

      Although petitioners reference CAT relief in their statement of issues, they

do not make any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                   17-72674