NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CELIA REGINA FONTES CARVALHO, No. 19-70785 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-272-879 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 2, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Celia Regina Fontes Carvalho, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The parties are * 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). familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. We deny Carvalho’s challenge to the lack of time and date information in her notice to appear because—regardless of the merits—the purported claim- processing error was not timely raised. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Absent a timely … invocation of … [a] claim-processing rule, we are not obliged to enforce the rule.”). The “essential function” of a notice to appear is to “[c]onvey … time-and-place information to a noncitizen” and “facilitate appearance at [the] proceedings.” Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2115 (2018). Here, the agency eventually provided the information in a notice of hearing, and Carvalho fully participated in the proceedings by making an appearance, offering evidence and testimony, and appealing to the BIA. The agency did not err in finding no nexus between the harm and a protected ground under either the “one central reason” standard for the asylum claim, or “a reason” standard for the withholding-of-removal claim. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir. 2017). Although it is possible that the domestic partner’s generally violent nature was not the sole reason for abusing Carvalho, Carvalho failed to show that she was targeted “on account of” belonging to the social group, “members of the Fortes–Carvalho family.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016). 2 The other social groups do not save Carvalho’s application. We lack jurisdiction to address the proposed social group—“Brazilian women in a domestic relationship who are viewed as property”—because it was not presented to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). Nor do we consider the social groups “women” and “women in Brazil,” which were not “the grounds relied upon by [the] agency.” See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Carvalho did not belong to the social ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals