From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Galvez-Rivera v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 12, 2020
No. 18-71438 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2020)

Opinion

No. 18-71438

02-12-2020

UBALDO ANTONIO GALVEZ-RIVERA; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency Nos. A208-382-448 A208-377-639 A208-382-449 A208-377-640 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

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

Ubaldo Antonio Galvez-Rivera and his family, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioners failed to establish the harm they experienced or fear in Honduras was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's "desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground"). We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners' contentions regarding their proposed social group of small business owners because they did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We do not consider petitioners' proposed social group of "women in Honduras" because the BIA did not decide the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and petitioners do not contend the BIA erred in finding the group was not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Petitioners do not challenge the agency's denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to CAT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.


Summaries of

Galvez-Rivera v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 12, 2020
No. 18-71438 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2020)
Case details for

Galvez-Rivera v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:UBALDO ANTONIO GALVEZ-RIVERA; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR,…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 12, 2020

Citations

No. 18-71438 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2020)