NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SONIA ANIELKA OROZCO-SALGADO, No. 19-71358 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-489-099 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 10, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, HUNSAKER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sonia Orozco-Salgado, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), * 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). and we deny the petition for review. Asylum. Orozco argues the agency erred in failing to consider the post-filing changed political circumstances in Nicaragua as a justification for considering her otherwise untimely asylum application.1 Even assuming the BIA erred in its interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2)(i)(B), such error was harmless. The BIA considered Orozco’s asylum claim on its merits, including Nicaragua’s changed political climate. Orozco feared persecution because she is not a member of the Sandinista party. The BIA found Orozco did not “establish that she has a political opinion, anyone would impute a political opinion to her, or that she would be harmed on account of a political opinion.” The evidence presented does not compel a contrary conclusion. Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that under the substantial evidence standard, this court “reverse[s] the BIA only on a finding that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it” (internal citation omitted)). Additionally, Orozco’s claim is undermined by the fact that her mother—who is similarly politically 1 Orozco argues that the physical and psychological harm she suffered at the hands of a Mexican cartel should be considered an extraordinary circumstance under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(i), also justifying the delay of her asylum application. However, we do not consider this issue because Orozco never made this argument to the BIA. “[F]ailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 2 situated—has lived, and continues to live, in Nicaragua unharmed. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that a “petitioner’s fear of future persecution is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the petitioner’s home country are not harmed” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Therefore, Orozco failed to show she has a causal nexus to a protected ground.2 CAT. Orozco’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals