NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LISSETTE NARANJO HERNANDEZ, No. 19-71391 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-093-705 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: M. MURPHY,*** BENNETT, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Lissette Naranjo Hernandez seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (ABIA@) dismissing her appeal from an 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 Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. judge=s (AIJ@) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ' 1252, this court denies Naranjo Hernandez=s petition. We review Ade novo the BIA=s determinations on questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact.@ Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). The BIA=s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. at 1241–42. Under this standard, A[t]he BIA=s factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.@ Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 663–64 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). AThe BIA=s conclusion regarding social distinctionCwhether there is evidence that a specific society recognizes a social groupCis a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.@ Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1242. The BIA determined Naranjo Hernandez failed to demonstrate she belonged to a cognizable particular social group for two reasons: (1) the particular social group proposed by Naranjo Hernandez, women who are unable to leave a relationship because they are powerless, is not cognizable because it Ais similar to the group discussed in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018); and (2) additionally and alternatively, Naranjo Hernandez failed to present Aevidence to establish the putative group is a socially distinct segment of Mexican society.@ In her brief on appeal, Naranjo Hernandez does not address the second basis adopted by the BIA in denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Instead, 2 19-71391 she limits her challenge to the BIA=s reliance on Matter of A-B-. Because Naranjo Hernandez has not briefed the correctness of one of the BIA=s independent reasons for denying her asylum and withholding of removal, she has waived appellate review of that issue. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, even if this court were to resolve in Naranjo Hernandez=s favor her challenge to the validity of any aspect of Matter of A-B-, she still would not be entitled to any relief. Cf. United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals