Wendy Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Wendy Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

362 F. App'x 740

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

Docket08-73996

StatusUnpublished

This text of 362 F. App'x 740 (Wendy Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wendy Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 362 F. App'x 740 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Wendy G. Rivera Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ found that petitioner was not eligible for asylum relief because her asylum application was untimely, and that petitioner failed to establish persecution and therefore she was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal relief. The BIA held that petitioner had waived any challenge to the IJ’s finding that her asylum application was untimely, and denied petitioner’s application for withholding of removal based on her failure to establish persecution.

Petitioner alleges that the BIA erred in denying her request for asylum and withholding relief because she fears persecution from criminal gangs, and because the BIA failed to fully articulate its reasons for dismissing her appeal.

Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she had waived any challenge to the denial of her asylum application, and therefore petitioner has waived any arguments concerning whether she merited asylum relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. *741 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s denial of her withholding of removal claim which was based on petitioner’s failure to establish that she was persecuted by gangs in Guatemala, or that she was a member of a particular social group so as to merit withholding of removal relief. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected ground). Finally, the BIA properly articulated its holding and reasoning, and its decision did not violate petitioner’s due process rights. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Wendy G. Rivera Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ found that petitioner was not eligible for asylum relief because her asylum application was untimely, and that petitioner failed to establish persecution and therefore she was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal relief. The BIA held that petitioner had waived any challenge to the IJ’s finding that her asylum application was untimely, and denied petitioner’s application for withholding of removal based on her failure to establish persecution.

Petitioner alleges that the BIA erred in denying her request for asylum and withholding relief because she fears persecution from criminal gangs, and because the BIA failed to fully articulate its reasons for dismissing her appeal.

Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she had waived any challenge to the denial of her asylum application, and therefore petitioner has waived any arguments concerning whether she merited asylum relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. *741 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s denial of her withholding of removal claim which was based on petitioner’s failure to establish that she was persecuted by gangs in Guatemala, or that she was a member of a particular social group so as to merit withholding of removal relief. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected ground). Finally, the BIA properly articulated its holding and reasoning, and its decision did not violate petitioner’s due process rights. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 F. App'x 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendy-hernandez-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack