YESENIA ORELLANA-TOBAR V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-72842 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YESENIA ESPERANZA ORELLANATOBAR; et al., No. 19-72842 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A208-752-337 A208-752-338 MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Yesenia Esperanza Orellana-Tobar and her son, 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 Convention * 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). 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 review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s dispositive determination that they waived their challenge to the IJ’s finding that their asylum application was timebarred and they did not establish an exception to excuse the untimely filing. 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). We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of their asylum claim because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to petitioners’ asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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 2 19-72842 random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (to establish a nexus to a political opinion ground, petitioners must show “(1) that [they] had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [they were] targeted on account of that opinion.”). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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). Petitioners’ contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis are not supported by the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-72842
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.
