FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIDA DONIS HERNANDEZ, No. 19-72452 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-547-172 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 15, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.*** Petitioner Elida Donis Hernandez is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 2018. She seeks relief from denial of her applications for asylum, * 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). *** Judge Collins joins the opinion except as to Part 1. withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture by an immigration judge that was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The agency determined that Donis Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for relief because her proposed particular social group was overly broad and not legally cognizable, she failed to establish a nexus between her alleged persecution and a protected ground, she had not demonstrated that she was tortured or physically harmed in Guatemala or that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her, and she failed to establish she could not reasonably relocate to avoid harm. Donis Hernandez argues that the agency erred. Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s decision and supplements its own analysis, we review both agency decisions. See, e.g., Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (looking to the Immigration Judge’s decision “as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion[s]” (quoting Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000))). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). A petitioner contending that the BIA’s findings are erroneous must establish that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (“A finding by the IJ is 2 not supported by substantial evidence when any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.” (cleaned up) (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014))). 1. Petitioner’s arguments regarding asylum and withholding are waived. Donis Hernandez fails to meaningfully challenge two of the agency’s dispositive findings: (1) relocation in Guatemala is a reasonable possibility; and (2) there is no nexus between a recognized protected ground and her claimed and feared harm. Both the internal relocation finding and nexus findings are dispositive. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002) (“[A]n individual who can relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum.”); Melkonian …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals