NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EDWIN LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, No. 19-72949
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-471-427
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.
Edwin Erwin Lopez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the order of
*
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).
***
The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
the immigration judge (IJ) denying his request for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Although we have
jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), our jurisdiction
extends only to claims that have been exhausted before the BIA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1). Because Lopez-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his claims, we lack
jurisdiction and dismiss the petition.
1. Lopez-Rodriguez has forfeited his asylum and withholding of removal
claims. The IJ denied those claims on a number of alternative grounds, including
that Lopez-Rodriguez’s proposed social group was not cognizable and he had
failed to establish a nexus between the claimed persecution and the social group.
In this Court, Lopez-Rodriguez challenges the IJ’s cognizability finding but does
not contest the nexus determination. A lack of nexus is dispositive for asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081
(9th Cir. 2016). Lopez-Rodriguez has thus forfeited his asylum and withholding of
removal claims by failing to challenge the dispositive nexus finding here. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Lopez-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his CAT claim before the BIA.
The IJ denied protection under CAT because Lopez-Rodriguez had failed to testify
credibly, did not proffer other evidence demonstrating a particularized risk of
2
future torture, and failed to establish government acquiescence to any torture.
Before the BIA, Lopez-Rodriguez asserted only that the government was unable or
unwilling to protect him from torture, and the BIA found that he “d[id] not
meaningfully dispute” the IJ’s factual findings or legal conclusions. Lopez-
Rodriguez’s general allegations were insufficient to exhaust his CAT claim before
the BIA. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We thus lack
jurisdiction to review Lopez-Rodriguez’s unexhausted CAT claim.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3