Cua Garcia De Elias v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-1447
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EBIA SANTIAGA CUA GARCIA DE No. 24-1447 ELIAS; FERNANDO NEHEMIAS ELIAS- Agency Nos. CUA; DANNA MARTINA ELIAS- A241-848-921 CUA; SOFIA NAYELI ELIAS-CUA, A241-848-922 A241-848-923 Petitioners, A241-848-924 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 14, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Lead Petitioner Ebia Santiaga Cua Garcia de Elias and her three minor

children are natives and citizens of Guatemala. They timely seek review of a

* 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). decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing their appeal of

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review factual determinations

for substantial evidence, meaning that we will not overturn a finding unless the

evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147,

1150 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition.

1. Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that the unknown gang

member who threatened and extorted Lead Petitioner was motivated solely by

financial gain, so we do not reach that issue. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec.

657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (“The respondent did not appeal the Immigration Judge’s

decision regarding that aspect of his claim, so this issue is waived.”); see also

Marmolejo–Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 913 n.12 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(“[Petitioner] did not appeal that portion of the BIA’s decision, thus waiving any

challenge to its validity.”). Thus, because nexus is lacking, we need not decide

whether the proposed particular social group is cognizable or whether Lead

Petitioner experienced persecution within the meaning of the statute. Rodriguez-

Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023).

2. Petitioners’ opening brief does not contain any specific, reasoned

argument challenging the denial of CAT relief or challenging the BIA’s denial of

2 24-1447 Petitioners’ motion to remand. We therefore deem those issues to be abandoned.

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

3. Petitioners argue that they were prevented from presenting their case

before the IJ, but they did not make that argument to the BIA. Although their

failure to exhaust this due process claim is not jurisdictional, the exhaustion

requirement is mandatory when, as here, the government has properly raised the

issue. Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024).

Accordingly, we do not consider this argument.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-1447