NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 27 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELICIANA PABLO-PABLO; JAMES No. 19-71531 ARNOLDO PABLO-PABLO, Agency Nos. A216-386-675 Petitioners, A216-386-676 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 13, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** TALLMAN, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Feliciana Pablo-Pablo (“Pablo”) and her minor son, J.A.P.P., petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and move for * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. remand to the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). 1 Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review because the BIA’s decision denying asylum is supported by substantial evidence. 2 See Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining the standard of review). We also deny the motion to remand based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because Pablo failed to exhaust administrative remedies by neglecting to raise this argument in her appeal to the BIA. Pablo claims that she is entitled to asylum because she has demonstrated that she cannot return to Guatemala “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in [] particular social group[s].” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). To establish past persecution, Pablo must show “(1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is on account of one of the statutorily- protected grounds; and (3) is committed by the government or forces the government 1 Pablo’s son’s asylum claim is derivative of his mother’s. Thus, we refer only to Pablo’s application throughout the disposition. 2 Nexus issues are generally reviewed for substantial evidence, see Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2009), but this court has also suggested that nexus issues are questions of law, reviewed de novo, when the petitioner is deemed credible, see Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1022 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Pablo was found credible as to only one of her two asserted particular social groups, but the parties have not raised any issue regarding the applicable standard of review, and we do not address it. 2 19-71531 is either unable or unwilling to control.” Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Only the second element is disputed here. Pablo claims that she was persecuted on account of her membership in two particular social groups: indigenous Guatemalan women and immediate family members of Antonio ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals