NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Adriana Yadira Cuevas Nunez, No. 21-134 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-180-514 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 15, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Adriana Yadira Cuevas Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition in part and deny it in part. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Where, as here, the Board “expressed agreement with the reasoning of the [immigration judge],” we review both decisions. Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Id. We review claims of due process violations de novo. Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2020). 1. Cuevas Nunez claims that her due process rights were violated because the immigration judge displayed bias by misstating the record, so she did not have a neutral factfinder. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). The misstatements consisted mostly of clerical errors, or permissible interpretations of ambiguous testimony, which do not demonstrate bias. Although the immigration judge incorrectly stated that Cuevas Nunez did not provide evidence of her rape, Cuevas Nunez does not show how that statement caused prejudice. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish a due process violation, the petitioner must “demonstrate[] prejudice, ‘which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation’” (quoting Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 1986))). The Board expressly rejected the immigration judge’s statements about the lack of evidence of rape, and it did not rely on the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding no prejudice when “although the [immigration judge] made a questionable adverse credibility finding . . . , any prejudice from that was cured by the Board’s subsequent decision assuming the 2 21-134 credibility of [the petitioner’s] testimony in full”). We therefore deny the petition for review insofar as it asserts a due process claim. 2. Cuevas Nunez argues that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal because she faces persecution on account of her membership in certain particular social groups and on account of her imputed political opinion. Her proposed particular social groups are related to her family and her actions assisting the prosecution of her rapists. Her proposed imputed political opinion also relates to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals