Maria Campos-Jovel v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ISABEL CAMPOS-JOVEL and No. 19-72545
JOSE ALEJANDRO MARIN-CAMPOS,
Agency Nos. A208-281-189
Petitioners, A208-281-190
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney Gen-
eral,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 10, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,*** Interna-
tional Trade Judge.
*
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 M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Maria Isabel Campos-Jovel and her son, Jose Alejandro Marin-Campos, peti-
tion for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing their
appeal from the order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their application for
asylum and withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).1
We “review the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief for ‘substantial evidence’ ” and will reverse only if the evidence compels a
contrary conclusion. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part.
Petitioners contend the BIA and IJ erred by finding that Petitioners failed to
show a nexus between any persecution they faced and a protected ground. Before
the BIA, Petitioners argued that they faced or will face persecution based on their
political opinion and membership in the particular social group of “family.” The BIA
agreed with the IJ that there was no nexus between any persecution and a protected
ground.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. As to the claim based
on political opinion, Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s nexus determination and
that issue is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.
1
Petitioners did not appeal the denial of CAT relief to the BIA. The BIA deemed
that claim abandoned.
2
1996). As to the particular social group of “family,” the BIA noted that there was no
evidence that gang members harassed Marin-Campos based on familial ties. Rather,
the BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that the gang members harassed Marin-Campos
because they wanted him to join their gang. In fact, the IJ noted that Marin-Campos
testified that other individuals were recruited to be gang members, women were re-
cruited to be girlfriends of gang members, and others were extorted for money.
As to Campos-Jovel, the BIA similarly cited the IJ’s analysis that the gang
targeted her to recruit her son into the gang. Petitioners also refer to gangs murdering
two of Campos-Jovel’s nephews elsewhere in El Salvador, but nothing in the record
establishes that the gang members who harassed Petitioners were the same ones who
murdered the nephews. Since the BIA’s nexus determination is supported by the
record, Petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal must necessarily
fail. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357–59 (9th Cir. 2017) (recogniz-
ing that nexus is a required element for asylum and withholding of removal claims).
Further, Petitioners appear to argue on appeal that they were persecuted by
gang members on account of their membership in two other particular social groups:
(1) “Salvadorans who oppose gang recruitment” and (2) “witnesses who testify
against gang members in El Salvador.” But because Petitioners’ BIA brief did not
raise these particular social groups, they are unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to
consider them. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
3
(per curiam) (holding that if a petitioner files a brief with the BIA, he will be
“deemed to have exhausted only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before
the BIA”).
Petitioners also raise two other arguments. First, they argue the BIA erred in
affirming the IJ’s finding that Petitioners failed to establish past persecution. Second,
they argue the BIA erred in finding that Petitioners failed to show that their “family”
particular social group was cognizable. We need not address these issues since the
BIA’s determination on nexus is dispositive of Petitioners’ claims. See INS v. Baga-
masbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not re-
quired to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
they reach.”).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
4