NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MISAEL ULIRES MARTINEZ- No. 23-2019 TORRES; DORA ALIEIA FERRERA- Agency Nos. GAREIA; DANIELA ALEJANDRA A220-502-343 MARTINEZ-FERRERA, A220-502-344

A220-502-345

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

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 2, 2024**

San Diego, California Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Misael Ulires Martinez-Torres, along with his wife and minor daughter, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration

*

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). Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny their petition.

1. The BIA determined that petitioners, who are citizens of El Salvador, waived any challenge to the IJ’s findings that they (1) failed to establish any nexus between past or feared future harm and a protected statutory ground, and (2) failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of torture if removed to El Salvador. Those determinations are, respectively, dispositive of petitioners’ asylum and withholding claims, see Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023), and CAT claims, id. at 1023.

Petitioners have not shown that the BIA’s waiver determination was in error. Petitioners, who were represented by counsel before the agency, failed to meaningfully challenge either finding in their brief before the BIA. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2019) (issues are properly waived before the BIA when they are not raised in briefing).

2. Petitioners’ remaining arguments about their asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fall outside the scope of our review, which is limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021).

PETITION DENIED.

2 23-2019