NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENIA LISSETTE RENDEROS- No. 18-70511 NATAREN; GERSON ANTONIO PORTILLO-RENDEROS, Agency Nos. A208-267-865 A208-267-899 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Kenia Lissette Renderos-Nataren and her minor son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, timely petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the denial of their claims 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s decision, “except to the extent that the [immigration judge’s] opinion is expressly adopted,” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000)), and review “the BIA’s determination that a petitioner does not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal under the highly deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard,” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). Petitioners fail to challenge the BIA’s determination that they have not suffered past harm that rises to the level of persecution, and therefore waive that argument. See Hui Ran Mu v. Barr, 936 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2019) (“issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived” (citing Martinez-Serrano v. INS., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996))). To be eligible for asylum, Petitioners had to demonstrate a “well-founded fear of future persecution” on account of their membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). To be cognizable, a particular social group must be “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 The BIA correctly determined that the proposed social groups—“El Salvadoran women who do not have protection from violence” and “El Salvadoran women business owners”—are not cognizable. Because the “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground,” Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016, the first proposed social group is not cognizable. Because Petitioner failed to challenge the BIA’s finding that she is no longer a business owner, and therefore not a member of that proposed group, she waived the issue. See Hui Ran Mu, 936 F.3d at 936 (“issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived” (citing Martinez-Serrano, 94 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals