Julia Lopez-Sanchez v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIA LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 15-71105
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-319-755
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Julia Lopez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Sanchez’s contentions that
the BIA failed to properly consider her case and failed to consider due process
violations that occurred before the IJ.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, Lopez-Sanchez fails to challenge
the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Without credible testimony, Lopez-Sanchez is
ineligible for asylum or withholding because the remaining evidence in the record
is insufficient to support her claims. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009
(9th Cir. 2017). We do not address Lopez-Sanchez’s contentions regarding the
cognizability of her proposed social group because the BIA did not deny relief on
that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, we deny the petition as
to Lopez-Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Lopez-Sanchez also fails to challenge the BIA’s determination that she did
not appeal the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Sanchez’s contention that the BIA
failed to consider arguments as to CAT eligibility. Thus, we deny the petition as to
2 15-71105
Lopez-Sanchez’s CAT claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Sanchez’s contentions that the IJ
violated her right to due process in the assessment of her CAT claim, or her
contentions regarding her eligibility for CAT relief, because she failed to raise
these arguments before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we dismiss the petition to the extent it asserts these
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71105