FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERLIN PAZ, AKA Nelsi Banagas, AKA No. 17-72387 Serlin Jonelyn Paz, AKA Serlin Ramos Paz, AKA Serlin Jonelin Paz Sosa, Agency No. A072-524-619 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 13, 2020** Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Serlin Paz seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") final order affirming the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of her requests * 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). for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the IJ did not clearly err in concluding that Petitioner is not eligible for withholding of removal on account of her family membership. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard). Petitioner did not present any evidence that she was raped because of her family ties. And Petitioner testified that her brother was killed because of his gang affiliation, not because of his family. Although Petitioner’s father and sister were threatened by gang members and told to leave the area where they lived, they were not harmed and were able to relocate safely. Substantial evidence thus supports the conclusion that Petitioner and her family did not suffer past persecution on account of their family membership. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual ‘suffering or harm.’"). Petitioner also failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she would suffer future persecution if she returned to Honduras. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members 2 continue to live in the country without incident, . . . or when the applicant has returned to the country without incident.”) (citations omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007). 2. Petitioner waived review of the cognizability of her proposed social group of "women in Honduras who were raped with no state action." Petitioner did not challenge on appeal, either to the BIA or to this court, the IJ’s determination that her proposed social group is not cognizable. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that arguments not raised in a party’s opening brief generally are waived). 3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals