Jenny Lisseth Munguia-De Alfaro; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENNY LISSETH MUNGUIA-DE
ALFARO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72927
Agency Nos. A208-993-811
A208-993-812
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jenny Lisseth Munguia-De Alfaro and her minor son, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition pro se 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 denying Munguia-De Alfaro’s
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72927
applications withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We do not disturb the determination that petitioners failed to establish they
suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences, including two
beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past
persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir.
2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review
applies, where result would be the same under either standard).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioners failed to
establish they would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v.
Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular
social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or
will be on account of his membership in such group”); 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 do not consider petitioners’ proposed particular social group of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72927
Salvadorans who reported criminal activities of MS-13 to the police, or the
asserted extortion threats because the BIA did not decide these issues, 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 that these claims were 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).
Therefore, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Munguia-De Alfaro’s withholding
of removal claim fail.
Munguia-De Alfaro does not contest, and therefore waives, the BIA’s
determination that she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of her CAT claim. See id.
To the extent petitioners claim that the IJ violated due process, we lack
jurisdiction to consider the contention because they failed to raise it before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner
must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --