Sara VARGAS RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: October 22, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
David Edward Walters, Esquire, Law Office of David E. Walters, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Sara Vargas Ramirez and her minor child, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for 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.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, petitioners fail to challenge in their opening brief the BIA’s determination that they did not establish past persecution and that they waived before the BIA any challenge to the IJ’s future persecution finding. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Petitioners also fail to challenge the BIA’s determination that they waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Id. Thus, petitioners’ asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not meaningfully address the issues raised.
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and corroborative evidence because the BIA did not reach those issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights because they failed to raise the claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.