NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTHA ROJAS-GALINDO, No. 18-73150 Petitioner, Agency No. A078-110-018 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge MURGUIA Petitioner Martha Rojas-Galindo, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing her * 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 Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Where, as here, “the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the [BIA’s] determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). To qualify for withholding of removal, Rojas-Galindo must establish a clear probability that she will be persecuted on account of a protected ground if removed to Colombia. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir. 2000). If past persecution is established, the requisite likelihood of future 1 Rojas-Galindo also applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), but she did not appeal the IJ’s denial of her CAT claim to the BIA. She does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she waived her CAT claim or its decision not to remand her action, thereby waiving those issues. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that issues not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived) (citing Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, our review is limited to the BIA’s determination that Rojas- Galindo is not eligible for withholding of removal. 2 persecution is presumed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i); Navas, 217 F.3d at 663. Absent past persecution, Rojas-Galindo must demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). To meet this burden, Rojas- Galindo must show that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals