Rosa Anariba v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 2, 2023
• Docket: 23-1434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1434 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1434

ROSA ANARIBA; L.Y.O.A.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Eric R. Suarez, SANABRIA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1434 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Rosa Anariba and her daughter, L.Y.O.A., ∗ natives and citizens of Honduras,

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Anariba’s

appeal from the immigration judge’s oral decision denying her applications for asylum,

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

deny the petition for review.

As to Anariba’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the

immigration judge ruled that Anariba failed to prove that the past persecution she alleged,

or the future persecution she feared, were on account of a statutorily protected ground. The

Board found no clear error in this factual determination, which was dispositive of these

applications for relief. See generally Madrid-Montoya v. Garland, 52 F.4th 175, 179 (4th

Cir. 2022) (discussing the nexus element and explaining that, “[i]f an applicant fails to

satisfy the nexus requirement, she cannot obtain asylum or withholding of removal”); see

generally also Garcia v. Garland, 73 F.4th 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2023) (observing that “[t]he

core of an applicant’s eligibility for withholding of removal is the nexus between

persecution and a protected status, a link that requires showing that the applicant’s status

is at least one central reason for the risk of harm that he faces” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). However, because Anariba’s brief in this court does not address the agency’s

“no-nexus” ruling, she has forfeited appellate review of this part of the Board’s order. See

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023)

∗ L.Y.O.A. was a derivative asylum applicant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1434 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

(explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in

the party’s briefs); see also Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th

Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by

failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned

up)).

Anariba’s brief does raise substantive arguments related to the agency’s denial of

her claim for relief under the CAT. However, upon review of the record, we conclude that

the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief,

see Chicas-Machado v. Garland, 73 F.4th 261, 272 (4th Cir. 2023). That is, we are

satisfied that “a[ ] reasonable adjudicator would [not] be compelled to conclude” that the

Honduran government would consent to or acquiesce in Anariba’s future mistreatment by

a private actor. Chicas-Machado, 73 F.4th at 272 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Anariba (B.I.A. Mar. 23,

2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED