Isabel Benitez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 20, 2024
• Docket: 23-1839
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESENIA ISABEL No. 23-1839 BENITEZ; ALEJANDRO HIDALGO Agency Nos. ISABEL; JOSE ALFREDO HIDALGO A215-816-120 ISABEL; MARLENE HIDALGO ISABEL, A215-816-121 A215-816-122 Petitioners, A215-816-123 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 18, 2024** San Jose, California

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

* 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). Petitioners Yesenia Isabel Benitez and her minor children,1 natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) 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. We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial

evidence, Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en

banc), and deny the petition.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Petitioners’ applications for asylum and

withholding of removal because Petitioners both (1) failed to define with

particularity a cognizable social group of which they were members, and (2) failed

to establish any nexus between any protected ground and the past harm that they

and their family suffered or the future persecution that they feared. Although

Petitioners now argue that the BIA erred in holding that their proposed social

group was not cognizable, Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s lack-of-nexus

conclusion. “For both asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner must prove a

causal nexus between one of her statutorily protected characteristics and either her

past harm or her objectively tenable fear of future harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

1 Although the minor children filed their own applications for asylum and related relief, they do not assert grounds for relief separate from those asserted by their mother.

2 23-1839 Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). Because Petitioners have forfeited

any argument that they established a nexus, we must deny the petition as to the

claims concerning asylum and withholding of removal. See Orr v. Plumb, 884

F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The usual rule is that arguments . . . omitted from

the opening brief are deemed forfeited.”).

The BIA also appropriately concluded that Petitioners’ CAT claim failed.

To demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection, an applicant must establish a

“particularized and non-speculative risk” of future torture. Park v. Garland, 72

F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023). Here, the BIA concluded that Petitioners had

established only that they generally fear dangerous conditions in Mexico, not that

they face any risk particular to them. Petitioners’ opening brief asserts that Isabel

Benitez’s credible testimony establishes that Petitioners are entitled to CAT relief,

but beyond that bald assertion, they do not identify any error in the BIA’s analysis

of their CAT claim.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-1839