Opinion
No. 18-70950
03-15-2019
MARILU MANDUJANO ANDRADE, et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency Nos. A206-911-926 A206-911-927 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Marilu Mandujano Andrade and her son, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency's dispositive finding that Andrade failed to establish a nexus between any harm that she suffered or fears in Mexico and a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, petitioners' asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Andrade failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' contentions regarding family membership as a social group because they failed to raise this claim before the IJ. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[W]e are not permitted to decide a claim that the immigration court has not considered in the first instance.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.