Yaneth Estrada Rios v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANETH ADILENI ESTRADA RIOS; No. 18-72818
MELANY GUADALUPE GALLARDO
ESTRADA; NATALY WILEIDY Agency Nos. A208-195-307
GALLARDO ESTRADA, A208-195-308
A208-195-309
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 13, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Yaneth Estrada Rios (“Estrada Rios”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
*
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).
dismissing her appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Melany Guadalupe Gallardo Estrada and
Nataly Wileidy Gallardo Estrada, Estrada Rios’s children and derivative
beneficiaries of her application, also petition for review of the BIA’s decision. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed without an
opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 919 (9th
Cir. 2004). We review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Ridore v.
Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). We review claims of due process
violations de novo. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
1. To prevail on a due process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that the
proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from
reasonably presenting [her] case.” Lopez v. INS, 775 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.
1985); see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that petitioner
must show error and prejudice to establish due process violation). Estrada Rios
has not shown such fundamental unfairness. She argues that the IJ did not “apply
regulations which benefitted” her, but she fails to identify the regulations the IJ
allegedly failed to apply. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
2
abandoned.”). She also disagrees with how the IJ applied the applicable law to the
evidence, but she has demonstrated neither error nor prejudice on the IJ’s part and
thus fails to establish a due process violation. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,
424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Estrada Rios’s argument that the BIA’s summary affirmance violated her
due process rights also fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i); Falcon Carriche v.
Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850–52 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the BIA’s streamlined
decision did not violate due process).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Estrada Rios’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal based on the IJ’s
determination that Estrada Rios failed to show the requisite nexus between any
past or feared future harm and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground.”). The IJ found “no particular social group into which”
Estrada Rios would fall. Estrada Rios does not challenge this finding and does not
assert that any past persecution or feared future persecution is on account of any
other protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1231(b)(3)(A).
Because the lack of a nexus to a protected ground is fatal to Estrada Rios’s
asylum and withholding claims, see Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081
3
(9th Cir. 2016), we need not consider the IJ’s additional finding that the harm
Estrada Rios experienced and feared did not rise to the level of persecution.
3. Estrada Rios does not make any arguments to support her challenge to the
agency’s denial of CAT protection and, thus, fails to meaningfully challenge the
agency’s decision. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015)
(explaining that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s brief are
waived).
PETITION DENIED.
4