NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILAGRO DE LA PAZ ROMERO- No. 18-72295
MOLINA,
Agency No. A095-760-735
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2021**
Withdrawn from Submission February 9, 2021
Resubmitted August 6, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Milagro Romero-Molina, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her
*
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).
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th
Cir. 2017) (en banc). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
them here. We deny the petition.
1. In her opening brief, Romero-Molina does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that her asylum application was untimely. Thus, she has waived this
issue and we do not reach the merits of her asylum claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194
F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening
brief are deemed waived.”).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Romero-
Molina failed to meet her burden for withholding of removal. First, the record
does not compel the conclusion that the harm she suffered rose to the level of past
persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019)
(“[C]redible death threats alone can constitute persecution . . . [but] in only a small
category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause
significant actual suffering or harm.” (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)). Second, substantial evidence supports that Romero-Molina’s proposed
particular social group of “witnesses to crimes perpetrated by gang members or
2
leaders in El Salvador” was not cognizable because it lacked particularity and
social distinction. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242-44 (9th Cir.
2020). Third, the record does not compel the conclusion the Salvadoran
government would be unable or unwilling to protect her. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Romero-Molina failed to show it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3