Garcia-De Iraheta v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 23-3651
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2025 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

SAIRA YAMILETH GARCIA-DE No. 23-3651 IRAHETA; KEILA SOFIA IRAHETA- Agency Nos. GARCIA, A220-802-569 A220-802-568 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent. *

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

Submitted February 11, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, IKUTA, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Saira Yamileth Garcia-de Iraheta and Keila Sofia Iraheta-Garcia, natives and

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying their

applications for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioners failed to meaningfully

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). challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

CAT. Petitioners’ brief before the BIA was not sufficient to put it on notice of

their challenge to the IJ’s determinations that they failed to establish they were

members of a cognizable particular social group and that they failed to show it was

more likely than not that they would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See

Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023). In their petition for

review, Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s determinations that they waived

these dispositive issues. Accordingly, they have forfeited review of the waiver

determinations, and the issues are unexhausted. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94

F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that issues not specifically raised and

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). And, because the government

properly raised the exhaustion requirement, we may not review Petitioners’

unexhausted challenges to the IJ’s dispositive determinations. See Shen v.

Garland, 109 F.4th 1144, 1157 (9th Cir. 2024). Thus, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

2 23-3651