Case: 21-1398, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 1 of 5 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAYRA TORRES-MENDEZ, No. 21-1398 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-915-485 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 10, 2023** Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,*** District Judge. Petitioner Mayra Torres-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks * 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 Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. Case: 21-1398, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 2 of 5 review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ concluded that Torres-Mendez’s proffered particular social group of “young women . . . who are victims of attempted sexual violence” is not cognizable because it is connected to attempted harm and lacks social distinction. The IJ also found that, even if Torres-Mendez had alleged a cognizable particular social group, there would be no nexus between that group and her fear of persecution because she did not fall within the proposed group. Because the IJ found that Torres- Mendez was ineligible for asylum, she could not satisfy the more demanding requirements for withholding of removal. Finally, the IJ found that she did not qualify for CAT protection because the likelihood that she would be tortured with the consent, acquiescence, or willful blindness of the government was too speculative. The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s findings and deemed any argument challenging the IJ’s determination that Torres-Mendez failed to establish the requisite nexus between persecution and a cognizable social group waived because it was not raised to the BIA. The BIA declined to address Torres-Mendez’s newly- articulated groups on appeal because they were not presented to the IJ. 2 Case: 21-1398, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 3 of 5 Additionally, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Torres-Mendez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured in Mexico by or with the acquiescence of the government and upheld the IJ’s CAT denial. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (d)(1). We review the BIA’s factual findings, including whether an applicant demonstrated asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT eligibility, for substantial evidence. Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2021). Under this standard, the BIA’s findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals