NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLARISA MANLAPIG No. 22-1152 LICO; BUENAVENTURA LAGADAN Agency Nos. LICO, Jr., A205-326-711 A205-326-712 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 5, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: MILLER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.*** Clarisa Manlapig Lico (“Ms. Lico”) and Buenaventura L. Lico, Jr. (“Mr. Lico”), natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of the Immigration * 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 Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Ms. Lico’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.” Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011)). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition. 1. Because Mr. Lico did not file an independent application for either statutory withholding of removal or CAT relief and no derivative status exists for such relief, Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005), Mr. Lico is not eligible for relief. Thus, our review is limited to Ms. Lico’s claims. 2. Ms. Lico did not waive her claims. Although Ms. Lico’s briefing could have been more thorough, she sufficiently identified the agency rulings at issue and the facts from the record that she believes support her position. Compare with Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Because Acosta-Huerta made no argument with respect to the remaining issues . . . they are deemed abandoned.”). Therefore, we review her petition on the merits. 2 22-1152 3. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ms. Lico failed to establish a cognizable social group or a nexus to that group. Ms. Lico insists that she was targeted because of her social status, i.e., the fact that her husband worked abroad and she was considered wealthy in the Philippines. But Ms. Lico’s social group is not cognizable because wealth is not an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals