HERNESTINA ARRIETA ROBLES, ET AL V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-72919 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERNESTINA ARRIETA ROBLES; JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ MIRANDA; J.H.A., a minor; G.H.A., a minor, No. 18-72919 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A095-763-868 A208-118-943 A208-118-944 A208-120-327 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Petitioners Hernestina Arrieta Robles, Jose Hernandez Miranda, and their two * 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. minor sons (collectively, Petitioners) seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). When, as here, the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, we must limit our review to the BIA’s decision “except to the extent that the [immigration judge’s] opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Petitioners do not challenge in their opening brief the BIA’s dispositive finding that their proposed particular social group was not cognizable because it was impermissibly defined by the harm suffered. Petitioners likewise make no specific and distinct argument that the BIA erred in concluding that they did not show the clear likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of a government official upon removal to Mexico, which is required for CAT relief. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Therefore, any challenges to these determinations that are dispositive of Petitioners’ claims for relief are forfeited. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020). PETITION DENIED. 2
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.
