NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEYDI LISSETH RIOS-VALLADARES; No. 19-70887 I.E.B.R., a Juvenile; BLANCA ARMIDA VALLADAREZ DE RIOS; BLANCA Agency Nos. A202-027-647 MERARY RIOS-DE SOTO; M.G.S.R., a A202-027-648 Juvenile; E.R.S.R., a Juvenile; ROBERTO A202-028-341 SORTO-VASQUEZ, A206-758-847 A206-758-848 Petitioners, A206-758-849 A206-759-485 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 15, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge W. FLETCHER Petitioner Leydi Lisseth Rios-Valladares and members of her extended family (Petitioners), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. 1. Asylum is unavailable if an applicant can safely relocate to another part of the applicant’s home country. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). Petitioners had the burden of establishing that such relocation was not reasonable.1 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioners—supporters of the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party—could reasonably relocate within El Salvador. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e must uphold the IJ’s determination if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.”). 1 Petitioners failed to exhaust and waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that they did not suffer past persecution because they did not challenge it before the BIA or raise it in their opening brief in this court. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and, thus, this court generally lacks jurisdiction over “the merits of a legal claim not presented in the administrative proceedings below”); Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing waiver based on the failure to raise a claim in an opening brief). Petitioners also waived any argument that they would be persecuted by the government or a quasi-official group because they did not make that argument in their opening brief and instead argued that they would be persecuted by “private persecutors” that the government is unwilling or unable to control. See Martinez- Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. 2 The IJ, based on review of the record evidence, concluded that there was “no evidence that members of the ARENA party are targeted throughout El Salvador,” and that various jurisdictions throughout El Salvador had elected ARENA party members. Petitioners have not disputed these findings, which are supported by substantial evidence. The IJ also noted that two family members—who were also members of the ARENA party and had been …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals