NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YARELY GOMEZ ORTUNO; et al., No. 18-73008 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-604-427 A208-604-428 v. A208-604-429 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Yarely Gomez Ortuno (“Petitioner”) and her two minor children seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal.1 * 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). 1 As the BIA noted, the co-petitioners are derivative beneficiaries of their mother’s asylum application, so all references to “Petitioner” herein will be to Yarely Gomez Ortuno. Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) abdicated his role as a neutral adjudicator, erred in failing to consider that Petitioner purportedly established a nexus between a particular social group (“PSG”) and the alleged harm, erred in concluding that Petitioner did not establish the basis of imputed political opinion, erred in concluding that Petitioner did not establish why she could not relocate, and failed to provide any assessment of Petitioner’s application under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.3 First, the BIA correctly rejected Petitioner’s due process claim. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings are … reviewed de novo.”). As the Board correctly noted, Petitioner’s attorney questioned her at length with little interruption, and the IJ provided the opportunity for redirect and admitted all her proffered documents into evidence. And the BIA’s non-reliance on the IJ’s adverse credibility determination 2 Petitioner’s arguments focus exclusively on the IJ’s determinations, but “[w]here, as here, the BIA conducts a de novo review of the record, our review is limited to the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the [IJ]’s decision is expressly adopted by the Board.” Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 2000). We therefore do not address Petitioner’s arguments that are unrelated to the BIA’s grounds for its decision, including her relocation arguments and proposed PSG of “family in which others had also been murdered by a gang in Mexico.” See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 3 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. 2 rendered any alleged prejudice harmless in any event. See id. at 741. Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Guo v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals