Guardado-De Rivera v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 22-1014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANEETH EDELMIRA GUARDADO-DE No. 22-1014 RIVERA, Agency No. A202-175-633 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted August 23, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Yaneeth Guardado-De Rivera (Guardado-De Rivera), a native and citizen of

El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

decision dismissing her appeal of the denial of her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition for

review.

Guardado-De Rivera waived her challenge to the BIA’s dispositive

conclusion that she failed to establish the Salvadoran government would be unable

or unwilling to protect her from persecution by failing to preserve this issue in her

opening brief. See Escobar Santos v. Garland, 4 F.4th 762, 764 n.1 (9th Cir.

2021). Guardado-De Rivera’s failure in this regard disposes of both her asylum

and withholding of removal claims. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th

824, 832 (9th Cir. 2022), as amended (requiring an asylum applicant to establish

that “the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the

government was unable or unwilling to control”) (citations omitted); see also

Meza-Vasquez v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) (“A government’s

inability or refusal to protect against persecution is a core requirement for

withholding of removal. . . .”) (citation omitted).

Because we dispose of this petition for review based on waiver, we do not

reach the other issues Guardado-De Rivera raises.1

PETITION DENIED.

1 Guardado-De Rivera has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See Escobar Santos, 4 F.4th at 765 n.1.

2 22-1014