NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARINA CALIXTRO LOYA; et al., No. 18-72204 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-910-371 A206-910-372 v. A206-910-373 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: IKUTA and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER,*** District Judge. Marina Calixtro Loya and her two minor children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order reversing the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision, which granted them asylum and granted * 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 Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Calixtro’s application for withholding of removal. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). We deny the petition for review. The BIA determined: (1) that Calixtro failed to show that Mexico’s government was unable or unwilling to protect her from her sister-in-law; (2) that her sister-in-law targeted her because of a personal vendetta or grudge and not on account of a protected ground; (3) that Calixtro’s proposed particular social group, a victim of domestic violence, was not cognizable in light of Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018); and (4) that Calixtro could safely and reasonably relocate in Mexico. Calixtro has not raised a challenge to the BIA’s first three findings, and therefore we find these issues waived. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (an applicant’s failure to contest an issue in her opening brief results in waiver). Because an applicant for asylum must establish membership in a particular group; that her membership in that group is a central reason for her persecution; and that the alleged harm is inflicted by persons that the government is unwilling or unable to control, Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 234–44 (B.I.A. 2014), Calixtro’s waiver is fatal to her claim for asylum. 2 18-72204 Even in the absence of waiver, however, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions. First, the record supports the Board’s finding that Calixtro failed to establish that Mexico’s government was unable or unwilling to protect her from her sister-in-law. Although Calixtro reported the shooting incident to the police and her sister-in-law was not arrested, she also testified that her sister-in-law fled the scene, frequently moved around to avoid the government, and did ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals