NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CINDY SULEYMA OLMEDO GARCIA; No. 15-73582 CINDY JEANMILLETTE HERNANDEZ OLMEDO, Agency Nos. A206-680-495 A206-680-496 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 18, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge. Cindy Suleyma Olmeda Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously granted the parties’ joint motion to submit this case on the briefs and record and without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.1 We review for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in part and dismiss in part.2 1. Before this Court, Garcia argues that her “status as an ARENA member” and “her resistance to gang activities constituted a political opinion,” and that such facts “may have motivated persecution by FMLN gang members.” First, Garcia failed to exhaust before the BIA any claim based on her work for the ARENA political party. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a “failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter” (quotations and alterations omitted)). 1 Garcia’s daughter, Cindy Jeanmillette Hernandez Olmedo, also a petitioner here, seeks derivative relief based on Garcia’s application for asylum. 2 Garcia does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she is ineligible for CAT relief. Garcia has thus forfeited any challenge to the denial of CAT protection. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). 2 Second, we disagree with the government that Garcia also failed to exhaust her claim based on an alleged anti-gang political opinion. That theory is fairly set forth in Garcia’s brief to the BIA, and the BIA also addressed the nexus issue in its decision. While Garcia’s claim is thus exhausted to this extent, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals