NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES MEDINA No. 22-1238
RODALES; XOCHITL GUADALUPE Agency Nos.
CERVANTES MEDINA, A206-912-468
A206-912-469
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria De Los Angeles Medina Rodales and her minor daughter, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
*
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).
(BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). When, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms
the IJ’s decision by citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and
offers additional reasoning, the court reviews both decisions. Husyev v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We “review legal conclusions de novo” and
“review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s
determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
or CAT relief.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022).
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Petitioner correctly points out that the IJ’s analysis of her proposed
particular social group—immediate family member of cartel member or organized
crime participant—includes a citation to the Attorney General’s now-vacated
decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), vacated by Matter of
A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021). However, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s other, independent bases for denying Petitioner’s applications for
asylum and withholding of removal. The record does not compel a finding that
Petitioner faced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution
because Petitioner testified that she was never directly threatened with harm and
2 22-1238
that she did not believe that anyone wanted to harm her or her daughter in
particular. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)
(concluding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where the
petitioner received threats that were “anonymous, vague, and did not create a sense
of immediate physical violence”). The record also does not compel a finding that
Petitioner’s brother’s ties to the cartel were “one central reason,” or even “a
reason,” that Petitioner faced or will face harm. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846
F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining the nexus standards for asylum and
withholding of removal, respectively).
We deem unexhausted Petitioner’s arguments that the agency ignored
evidence of psychological torture when it analyzed her CAT claim and that the IJ,
after this case was reassigned to him, denied Petitioner due process by issuing a
decision on her applications after a four-year delay and without hearing new
testimony. Petitioner did not raise these arguments before the BIA, and the
Attorney General properly raises Petitioner’s failure to administratively exhaust
them. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023); see also
Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that a
petitioner must exhaust challenges to “procedural errors, constitutional or
otherwise, that are correctable by” the agency (citation omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
3 22-1238