ANA ANAYA DE NIETO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-71769 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 8 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA GLORIBEL ANAYA DE NIETO; ANDRES ANAYA NIETO, No. 16-71769 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A206-720-731 A206-720-732 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Ana Gloribel Anaya De Nieto and Andres Anaya Nieto, natives and citizens of El Salvador, 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 * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ pattern and practice contentions and their newly proposed social groups. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below). Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioners failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a political opinion or their membership in a family-based social group. 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”); 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”). In their opening brief, petitioners do not 2 16-71769 challenge the BIA’s determination that a recruitment-based social group is 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). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Anaya De Nieto failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the BIA and IJ violated their equal protection rights. As stated in the court’s August 25, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 16-71769
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
