Crispina Jimenez Rivera v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRISPINA JIMENEZ RIVERA; YOHANA No. 17-71290 JASLIN MURILLO JIMENEZ, Agency Nos. A206-680-667 Petitioners, A206-680-668 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 2, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and LEE, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge. Petitioners Crispina Jimenez Rivera and Yohana Jaslin Murillo Jimenez are citizens of Mexico who unlawfully entered the United States. Rivera applied for * 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 Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT, with her daughter, Jimenez, claiming derivative relief. The Immigration Judge (the “IJ”) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) affirmed. Petitioners now seek review of the BIA’s decision as to Rivera’s asylum and CAT claims.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s determinations of questions of law de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA’s findings of fact “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The BIA correctly denied Rivera’s claim for asylum. An asylum applicant must establish that she is subject to persecution on one of several grounds, including her membership in a cognizable particular social group. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A). Rivera claims that she was persecuted based on her membership in two social groups: 1) Mexican women unable to leave their relationships and 2) wealthy Mexican landowners. However, the record demonstrates that Rivera is not a Mexican woman unable to leave her relationship because she left her husband several times. While her experiences could conceivably constitute a cycle of abuse, there is insufficient 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts of Rivera’s Petition, we do not discuss them at length here. 2 evidence to compel a finding contrary to the BIA’s determination that Rivera was able to leave her relationship. The BIA also correctly denied Rivera’s claim for asylum as a wealthy Mexican landowner. On appeal, Rivera argues that the BIA improperly focused on whether homeownership, rather than landownership, was a cognizable social group, because it was not an issue addressed by the IJ, and that she was not put on notice that such an issue needed to be addressed before the BIA. Rivera claims that, as a result, “the Board erred in failing to address Petitioner’s arguments that she was a member of [her proposed particular social group].” However, the BIA actually held that Rivera failed ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals