NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA DEL CARMEN No. 09-73862
LOPEZ-GONZALEZ,
Agency No. A200-124-212
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 27, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: CANBY, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sandra del Carmen Lopez-Gonzalez petitions for review of the dismissal by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of her appeal from the decision by an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, grant it in part, and
remand for further proceedings.
1. Because Lopez-Gonzalez did not address her CAT claim in her opening
brief, it is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996). We therefore deny the petition insofar as it seeks review of the denial of the
CAT application.
2. In dismissing the asylum and withholding of removal applications, the
BIA simply concluded that Lopez-Gonzalez “failed to establish a nexus” to a
“cognizable particular social group” because, “at a minimum,” the social group in
which she claimed membership lacked “the required ‘particularity.’”
3. At the time it decided this case, the BIA did not have the benefit of this
court’s decisions in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010), and
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), clarifying the
particularity and social visibility required to find a social group cognizable for
purposes of asylum and withholding of removal, or its own recent decisions on those
requirements, Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of
W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). In Perdomo, we explained that “the size
and breadth of a group alone does not preclude a group from qualifying as . . . a
[particular] social group.” 611 F.3d at 669. In Henriquez-Rivas, we held that
social visibility requires only “that the shared characteristic generally be
2
recognizable by other members of the community,” or that “members of the
proposed group would be perceived as a group by society.” 707 F.3d at 1088-89
(internal quotation marks omitted). We further held that there are multiple
perspectives from which such visibility may be evaluated, including—and perhaps
most importantly—that of the persecutor. Id. at 1089-90.
4. “In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.
2004) (per curiam). In dismissing Lopez-Gonzalez’s appeal, the BIA relied
entirely on its rejection of her social group claim. Because Perdomo,
Henriquez-Rivas, Matter of M-E-V-G-, and Matter of W-G-R- post-dated that
dismissal, the BIA did not analyze the social group claim under the standards
established in those cases. As we have done previously, see, e.g., Maldonado-Valle
v. Holder, 581 Fed. App’x 678 (9th Cir. 2014), we therefore remand to the BIA to
“reconsider its determinations that the particular social group[] offered . . . [is] not
cognizable under the INA,” Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1117 (9th Cir.
2013), and, after such reconsideration, to consider “any issues remaining in the
case,” Andia, 359 F.3d at 1184.
PETITION DENIED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART, AND
REMANDED IN PART.
3