Perez Garcia v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRINIDAD PEREZ GARCIA; ANA No. 23-3077 MARIA PRADO CERVANTES; BRAYAN Agency Nos. FERNANDO SANCHEZ A216-910-992 PRADO; JAYDEN JESUS PEREZ A216-910-993 PRADO,

A216-910-994 A216-910-995

Petitioners,

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

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 7, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, KOH, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Petitioner Trinidad Perez Garcia,1 a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his family’s consolidated applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We refer to the petitioners collectively as “Perez Garcia.” We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling.

“Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002)). Reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, Ruiz- Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition.

The IJ denied Perez Garcia’s application for asylum and withholding of removal because Perez Garcia failed to establish harm rising to the level of past persecution; failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground; failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group;2 and failed to show that membership in a particular social group was “a reason” or “one central reason” for the persecution. The BIA affirmed on the ground that Perez Garcia did not demonstrate harm on account of membership in a particular social group. The BIA explicitly declined to consider the IJ’s other reasons for denying relief.

Perez Garcia now challenges the agency’s conclusions that he did not experience past persecution and did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA did not rule on these bases. Our review is limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Perez Garcia challenges bases upon which the BIA did not rely or rule and because the BIA was justified in declining to reach these bases, we are “not permitted” to address them. Id. at 992 n.3.

Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that Perez Garcia had established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution, Perez Garcia has still failed to challenge the agency’s conclusions that three of the four proposed particular social groups are not cognizable and that there was no nexus between the harm experienced and membership in any of the four proposed particular social groups. “Arguments not addressed in a brief are deemed abandoned.” Wilcox v. Comm’r., 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988).3

PETITION DENIED.