Marvila Estrada Adame; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVILA ESTRADA ADAME; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72420
Agency Nos. A206-678-712
A206-678-713
A206-678-714
A206-678-734
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Marvila Estrada Adame, her husband, and their minor children, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* 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).
FILED
DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72420
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in declining to consider the two proposed particular
social groups that petitioners raised for the first time to the BIA. See Honcharov v.
Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (BIA did not err in
declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal); see also Matter
of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190-91 (BIA 2018) (where the IJ did
not have an opportunity to make relevant factual findings, the BIA cannot do so in
the first instance on appeal).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish a nexus between their religion, including a related pacifist
ideology, and the harm they experienced or fear in Mexico. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of
[motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in original)); see also 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.”).
The BIA failed to address petitioners’ contention that they established a
nexus between the harm they experienced and fear and an imputed political
opinion based on a perceived association with the Knights Templar. See Sagaydak

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72420
v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to
ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider
petitioners’ imputed political opinion claim in the first instance. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d
977, 987 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --