ELSA ELIDA GOMEZ SAAVEDRA, AKA Elsa Gomez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

19-72904Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit28 avr. 2021

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA ELIDA GOMEZ SAAVEDRA, AKA
Elsa Gomez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72904
Agency No. A071-601-806
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Elida Gomez Saavedra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is
* 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
APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72904
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand.
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Gomez Saavedra does not raise any challenge to the
agency’s conclusion that the proposed particular social groups based on reporting
to the police and her status as a perceived wealthy returnee are not cognizable. 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). We lack
jurisdiction to consider the proposed particular social groups Gomez Saavedra
raises for the first time in her opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised to
agency). We do not address Gomez Saavedra’s contentions of error as to a
cognizability analysis applied to the proposed particular social groups raised for
the first time in her opening brief because the BIA did not deny relief on those
grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon
by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72904
Saavedra failed to establish the harm she experienced or fears was or would be on
account of a protected ground, including a political opinion. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where
petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition
to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the
petitioner); 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”). Thus,
Gomez Saavedra’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez Saavedra’s motion
to remand, where her contentions that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over her
proceedings are foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-61 (9th
Cir. 2019), and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020). Gomez
Saavedra’s request, raised in her opening brief, to hold this case in abeyance
pending a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Niz-Chavez v.
Barr, No. 19-863, is denied.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.