NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIA LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 15-71105 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-319-755 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Julia Lopez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Sanchez’s contentions that the BIA failed to properly consider her case and failed to consider due process violations that occurred before the IJ. As to asylum and withholding of removal, Lopez-Sanchez fails to challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Without credible testimony, Lopez-Sanchez is ineligible for asylum or withholding because the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to support her claims. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). We do not address Lopez-Sanchez’s contentions regarding the cognizability of her proposed social group because the BIA did not deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, we deny the petition as to Lopez-Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. Lopez-Sanchez also fails to challenge the BIA’s determination that she did not appeal the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Sanchez’s contention that the BIA failed to consider arguments as to CAT eligibility. Thus, we deny the petition as to 2 15-71105 Lopez-Sanchez’s CAT claim. We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Sanchez’s contentions that the IJ violated her right to due process in the assessment of her CAT claim, or her contentions regarding her eligibility for CAT relief, because she failed to raise these arguments before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we dismiss the petition to the extent it asserts these contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 15-71105 15-71105 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Julia Lopez-Sanchez v. Robert Wilkinson 19 February 2021 Agency Unpublished e9d9e6980bd9d9dc3fa514231d1aa43e66054f90
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals