Edwin Lopez-Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72949
Agency No. A206-471-427
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.
Edwin Erwin Lopez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the order of
FILED
MAY 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

the immigration judge (IJ) denying his request for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Although we have
jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), our jurisdiction
extends only to claims that have been exhausted before the BIA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1). Because Lopez-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his claims, we lack
jurisdiction and dismiss the petition.
1. Lopez-Rodriguez has forfeited his asylum and withholding of removal
claims. The IJ denied those claims on a number of alternative grounds, including
that Lopez-Rodriguez’s proposed social group was not cognizable and he had
failed to establish a nexus between the claimed persecution and the social group.
In this Court, Lopez-Rodriguez challenges the IJ’s cognizability finding but does
not contest the nexus determination. A lack of nexus is dispositive for asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081
(9th Cir. 2016). Lopez-Rodriguez has thus forfeited his asylum and withholding of
removal claims by failing to challenge the dispositive nexus finding here. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Lopez-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his CAT claim before the BIA.
The IJ denied protection under CAT because Lopez-Rodriguez had failed to testify
credibly, did not proffer other evidence demonstrating a particularized risk of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

future torture, and failed to establish government acquiescence to any torture.
Before the BIA, Lopez-Rodriguez asserted only that the government was unable or
unwilling to protect him from torture, and the BIA found that he “d[id] not
meaningfully dispute” the IJ’s factual findings or legal conclusions. Lopez-
Rodriguez’s general allegations were insufficient to exhaust his CAT claim before
the BIA. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We thus lack
jurisdiction to review Lopez-Rodriguez’s unexhausted CAT claim.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --