NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLGA NELLY MANCIA-LIMAS; No. 17-70340
ELIANY MANCIA-LIMAS,
Agency Nos. A206-792-128
Petitioners, A206-792-127
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Olga Nelly Mancia-Limas (“Olga”) and Eliany Mancia-Limas
(“Eliany”) seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”) relief. We deny the petition.
*
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).
“We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for
substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva-Pereira v.
Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
The BIA concluded that neither Petitioner raised before the immigration
judge (“IJ”) the contention that their asylum claims were based upon their
memberships in any particular, discrete social group. We have reviewed the record,
and we agree that Petitioners failed to articulate any protected ground on which
their alleged persecution was or would be based. The BIA therefore did not err by
determining the issue waived. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 189,
190 (BIA 2018). Because an asylum applicant must establish that any past
persecution “was on account of one or more protected grounds,” Henriquez-Rivas
v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Baghdasaryan v. Holder,
592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)), Petitioners’ waiver is fatal to their claims for
asylum.
Waiver aside, we also conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Olga’s claims are not based upon persecution, but rather, at most,
upon harassment. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s holding that any persecution suffered
2
by Eliany at the hands of her abusive uncle was not “committed . . . by forces that
the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at
1083. Thus, neither Petitioner has established eligibility for asylum.
Because Petitioners have failed to meet the lesser burden of proof for
establishing eligibility for asylum, it follows that they cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); see also Mansour
v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, the BIA denied Petitioners’ application for protection under the
CAT. Petitioners waived their challenge to this denial by failing to substantively
address it in their petition for review. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1
(9th Cir. 2015) (holding that petitioner “abandoned his claims for asylum and CAT
protection by not addressing them with any specificity in his briefs”). We therefore
deny Petitioners’ petition for review with regard to their CAT claims.
PETITION DENIED.
3