Selena Ramos Martinez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 24 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SELENA MARISOL RAMOS No. 19-71559
MARTINEZ,
Agency No. A215-638-711
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 12, 2020
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,**
District Judge.
Selena Marisol Ramos Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), dismissing
her appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ denied her
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a), and we deny the petition. “We review the denial of asylum,
withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence. . . . Under this
standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a
contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019) (citations omitted)..
1. Ramos Martinez does not challenge the Board’s finding that she could
avoid her father and the threatening community members by relocating to live with
her grandmother. “[T]he IJ may deny eligibility for asylum to an applicant who
has otherwise demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution where the evidence
establishes that internal relocation is a reasonable option under all of the
circumstances.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003); see
also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii) (“An applicant does not have a well-founded fear
of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part
of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . , if under all the circumstances it would
be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.”). By not challenging it in her
petition for review or brief to this court, Ramos Martinez has waived her challenge
to the finding that she could safely relocate to another part of the country, which is
2
dispositive of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Corro-Barragan
v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (applicant waived issue not
raised in opening brief); see also Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029 (if an
applicant does not establish eligibility for asylum, “it necessarily follows that [s]he
has not established eligibility for withholding”).
2. Ramos Martinez also has failed to challenge the Board’s findings that
she would not suffer torture with the consent or acquiescence of Guatemalan
government officials, that she could relocate within Guatemala, and that the
Guatemalan police’s actions in response to her mother’s May 2018 complaint
about the father indicated that government officials would not acquiesce in her
torture. These findings are dispositive of her CAT claim. See Parada v. Sessions,
902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (public official must consent to or acquiesce in
the torture); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (“Evidence that the applicant could
relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be
tortured” is “relevant to the possibility of future torture”).
3. Ramos Martinez does challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she is not a
member of a protected group. She argues that women may constitute a particular
social group based on their gender and that female victims of gender-based
violence are a particular social group. She also argues that women in Guatemala
3
are a disfavored group and that, as a member of a disfavored group, she is likely to
be persecuted and tortured if returned to Guatemala.
We do not address Ramos-Martinez’s protected group challenge because of
the dispositive nature of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 and 2.
The petition for review is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay [Dkt. 1]
is also denied. The temporary stay of removal issued pursuant to General Order
6.4(c) will automatically terminate upon issuance of the mandate.
4