Lissette Naranjo Hernandez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISSETTE NARANJO HERNANDEZ, No. 19-71391
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-093-705
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2020**
Portland, Oregon
Before: M. MURPHY,*** BENNETT, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lissette Naranjo Hernandez seeks review of a decision by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (ABIA@) dismissing her appeal from an immigration
*
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 Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
judge=s (AIJ@) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Exercising jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. ' 1252, this court denies Naranjo Hernandez=s petition.
We review Ade novo the BIA=s determinations on questions of law and
mixed questions of law and fact.@ Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). The BIA=s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Id. at 1241–42. Under this standard, A[t]he BIA=s factual findings are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.@
Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 663–64 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted). AThe BIA=s conclusion regarding social distinctionCwhether there
is evidence that a specific society recognizes a social groupCis a question of fact
that we review for substantial evidence.@ Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1242.
The BIA determined Naranjo Hernandez failed to demonstrate she belonged
to a cognizable particular social group for two reasons: (1) the particular social
group proposed by Naranjo Hernandez, women who are unable to leave a
relationship because they are powerless, is not cognizable because it Ais similar to
the group discussed in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018); and (2)
additionally and alternatively, Naranjo Hernandez failed to present Aevidence to
establish the putative group is a socially distinct segment of Mexican society.@ In
her brief on appeal, Naranjo Hernandez does not address the second basis adopted
by the BIA in denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Instead,
2 19-71391
she limits her challenge to the BIA=s reliance on Matter of A-B-. Because Naranjo
Hernandez has not briefed the correctness of one of the BIA=s independent reasons
for denying her asylum and withholding of removal, she has waived appellate
review of that issue. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th
Cir. 2013). Thus, even if this court were to resolve in Naranjo Hernandez=s favor
her challenge to the validity of any aspect of Matter of A-B-, she still would not be
entitled to any relief. Cf. United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir.
2005); MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 542 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987).
Even setting aside Naranjo Hernandez=s waiver, it is clear the BIA did not
err in recognizing that the record is devoid of evidence supporting a finding of
social distinction. As this court recently reiterated, the existence of A[s]ocial
distinction should be determined through a case-by-case, evidence-based inquiry as
to whether the relevant society recognizes the proposed social group.@ Conde
Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1242. A review of the record, specifically including Naranjo
Hernandez=s declaration and testimony and the documentary evidence admitted by
the IJ at the hearing, reveals no basis upon which to find that Mexican society
views the group of young, economically powerless women in domestic
relationships as distinct from society in general. Absent such evidence, the BIA
reasonably concluded Naranjo Hernandez failed to demonstrate she belonged to a
cognizable particular social group.
3 19-71391
Given Naranjo Hernandez’s waiver and the lack of record evidence
supporting the proposition that Naranjo Hernandez=s proposed social group is
viewed as distinct by Mexican society, it is unnecessary to consider Naranjo
Hernandez=s challenge to the BIA=s reliance on Matter of A-B-.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 19-71391