Solis Ramirez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-678
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 8 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARMEN ELENA SOLIS RAMIREZ, No. 22-678

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-479-773

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 30, 2023**

Before: SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ,*** District Judge.

Petitioner Carmen Elena Solis Ramirez, a citizen of El Salvador,

challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal from the

Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of

* 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). *** The Honorable Xavier Rodriguez, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. removal. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them here.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in

part and dismiss in part.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Petitioner failed to establish a nexus between a protected ground and the extortion

and threats she suffered at the hands of gang members. See Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010) (conducting substantial-evidence review of

the denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on lack of a nexus

between a protected ground and feared persecution). There is no evidence that

she was targeted on account of her membership in the particular social group

(PSG) of her immediate family. Moreover, Petitioner testified several times that

the threats and extortion were financially motivated.

2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims that she was

persecuted on account of her membership in other proposed PSGs or her political

opinion because she did not raise them before the agency. See Alvarado v.

Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1130 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that “issue exhaustion is a

jurisdictional requirement”).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

2 22-678