LUZ MUNOZ SALAZAR V. ROBERT WILKINSON, No. 19-73166 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 4 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUZ MILA MUNOZ SALAZAR; MARIA DEL ROSARIO FRIAS MUNOZ, No. 19-73166 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A092-892-280 A213-089-116 MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, HIGGINSON,*** and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Luz Mila Munoz Salazar and Maria Del Rosario Frias Munoz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration * 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 Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Substantial evidence review requires us to uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence in the record compels a conclusion to the contrary. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2018). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition. For Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to show persecution on account of or because of their membership in the particular social group of “family members of Antonio Frias Rodriguez.” See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on a particular social group, an applicant’s burden includes showing “a risk of persecution on account of his membership in the specified particular social group,” which “is often referred to as the ‘nexus’ requirement” (citation omitted)). In their opening brief, Petitioners do not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s determination that they failed to establish their eligibility for CAT protection, and therefore they have waived that issue. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 2 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
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.
