NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS NORMA CANDELERO PEREZ, No. 19-70900 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-968-336 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 3, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON,*** HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Norma Isabel Candelero Perez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”) and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. ordering her removed to Guatemala. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A finding is supported by substantial evidence unless “‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We review claims of due process violations de novo. Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Candelero Perez was ineligible for asylum because she failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also id. § 1158(b)(1)(B). In contending that she established persecution on account of a protected ground, Candelero Perez relies on her asserted membership in two “particular social group[s]”1 and an imputed “political opinion.” The agency held that Candelero Perez did not satisfy her burden of proof 1 She also raises for the first time in this court a third particular social group: “Guatemalan women who report crimes against them[selves] to the police.” Because she failed to exhaust this argument before the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 because (1) her testimony was not credible, and (2) even if her testimony was taken as true, she failed to establish several elements of her asylum claim. We need not decide whether the adverse credibility determination was proper, because we agree that Candelero Perez’s asylum claim fails on independent grounds. a. Assuming without deciding that Candelero Perez’s two asserted particular …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals