Erika Jovel-Moreno v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIKA JOVEL-MORENO; E.I.M.-J., No. 21-70458

Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-900-273 A206-900-272

v.

TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

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

Submitted August 14, 2026** Reno, Nevada

Before: BADE, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Erika Jovel-Moreno and E.I.M.-J. (“Jovel”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s order denying their applications for asylum,

*

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, and relief under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. The record does not compel the conclusion that Jovel was targeted because of any cognizable particular social group. Jovel testified that she was targeted by a criminal who wanted money, and Jovel agreed that many people in El Salvador— both men and women—are extorted for money. Jovel also indicated that her male employer paid for protection from similar criminal acts. On this basis, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Jovel’s particular social group was not a reason she was targeted for extortion. “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.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Without any nexus to a cognizable particular social group, Jovel’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. Id. at 1015; Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]here, as here, the claim for withholding is based on the same facts as the claim for asylum, the failure to establish eligibility for asylum results in the failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding.”).

2. Jovel forfeited any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief by failing to raise any arguments on that issue in her counseled opening brief. “[A]rguments … omitted from the opening brief are usually deemed forfeited.” Lui

2 21-70458

v. DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 780 (9th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi, 172 F.4th 736, 742 (9th Cir. 2026).

3. Jovel’s argument that the agency lacked jurisdiction in this case because of the omission of time and place information on the initial Notices to Appear, is foreclosed by precedent. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED.

3 21-70458