NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DIONISIA ORTIZ-MORENO, No. 17-71061
Petitioner, Agency No. A202-002-996
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 3, 2020
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Maria Ortiz-Moreno (“Ortiz-Moreno”) and her minor daughter are natives
and citizens of Honduras.1 They petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.2
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
Ortiz-Moreno’s daughter’s asylum application is derivative of her mother’s.
2
Before the IJ, Ortiz-Moreno also sought relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), but she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief before the
BIA.
Ortiz-Moreno argues that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
her membership in the group “women in Central America fleeing abusive partners
or husbands.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition for review.
1. Even assuming that Ortiz-Moreno’s proposed group is a cognizable
particular social group, the BIA did not err in concluding that there is no nexus
between the harm her ex-partner inflicted on their daughter and Ortiz-Moreno’s
membership in her social group.3 “Harm to a child can amount to past persecution
of the parent when that harm is, at least in part, directed against the parent ‘on
account of’ or ‘because of’ the parent’s . . . membership in a particular social
group . . . .” Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8
U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A)). Here, Ortiz-Moreno’s theory that her
ex-partner harmed their daughter in order to persecute Ortiz-Moreno is belied by
the record evidence. Their daughter testified, for example, that her father started
abusing her only after her grandmother died in 2013, more than five years after
Ortiz-Moreno left Honduras. And Ortiz-Moreno herself testified that her ex-
partner sought to hide his abuse of their daughter from her. Based on these
3
The BIA also concluded that Ortiz-Moreno failed to establish the requisite nexus
between the harm she suffered at the hands of her ex-partner and her membership
in her proposed group. Ortiz-Moreno does not challenge that nexus finding in her
petition for review.
2
undisputed facts, the BIA correctly concluded that the abuse of their daughter was
not directed in any way against Ortiz-Moreno “on account of” or “because of” her
membership in her proposed group.4
2. Reviewing de novo, Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th
Cir. 2014), we find no due process violation. The factual errors the IJ made in her
original ruling did not deprive Ortiz-Moreno of due process. See Vargas-
Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an alien is
given a full and fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, to prepare an
application for . . . relief, and to present testimony and other evidence in support of
the application, he or she has been provided with due process.”). And the IJ’s
questioning of Ortiz-Moreno during her removal hearing does not show that the IJ
“had a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible.” Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 926).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4
The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s finding that Ortiz-Moreno is not a member of the
particular social group that was found to be cognizable in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26
I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), overruled by Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316
(A.G. 2018). Ortiz-Moreno does not challenge this finding in her petition for
review.
3