Flores-Asuzena v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TATIANA FLORES-ASUZENA, No. 22-1717
Agency No.
Petitioner, A205-879-100
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Tatiana Estefany Flores-Asuzena, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing
her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and
*
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).
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petition.
Before the agency, Flores-Asuzena claimed to fear persecution on the basis
of her membership in the proposed particular social group of “Salvadoran women
opposed to cooperation with gangs.” The immigration judge denied relief on the
grounds that (1) the proposed group is not cognizable because it lacks particularity
and social distinction and (2) Flores-Asuzena did not establish any nexus between
her feared persecution and her membership in that proposed group. The Board
affirmed on both grounds.
Before this court, Flores-Asuzena argues that her proposed group is
cognizable. But she mentions the Board’s finding of a lack of nexus only in
passing, and she presents no argument challenging it. Her failure to adequately
address that issue is sufficient reason to deny her petition. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Flores-Asuzena suggests in passing that she faces persecution on the basis of
her political opinion and religion. She did not raise either theory before the Board.
Because those theories were not exhausted, we do not consider them. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
2 22-1717