Glidy Lemus Peralta; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLIDY LEMUS PERALTA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1493
Agency Nos.
A208-261-050
A208-261-051
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Glidy Lemus Peralta and her minor daughter, 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 (“IJ”) decision
denying petitioners’ application for asylum, and Lemus Peralta’s applications for
* 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
SEP 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1493
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish they were or 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”); see
also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,
standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground).
The BIA did not err in declining to consider petitioners’ contentions
regarding a political opinion and proposed particular social groups that were raised
for the first time to the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir.
2019) (BIA did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first time on
appeal). We do not consider these claims because the BIA did not decide the
issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). We also do not consider
petitioners’ contentions as to whether the harm suffered rose to the level of
persecution because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground. See id. Thus,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1493
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Lemus Peralta failed to establish any nexus at all, she also failed to
satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,
846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Because Lemus Peralta does not contest the BIA’s determination that she
waived challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Petitioners’ contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over
their proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th
1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice
to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and
8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --