ANDREA MARGARITA OSORIO CLAROS and JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ OSORIO v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREA MARGARITA OSORIO
CLAROS and JUAN CARLOS
HERNANDEZ OSORIO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1272
Agency Nos. A208-456-487
A208-456-488
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 3, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Andrea Margarita Osorio Claros, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her appeal from an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her and her son’s1 application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). This court
* 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)(C).
1 Juan Carlos Hernandez Osorio (A208-456-488) is a minor rider petitioner.
FILED
AUG 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and denies the petition.
1. The BIA properly found that Osorio Claros did not challenge the IJ’s
determination that she failed to show that El Salvador was unable or unwilling to
control her ex-partner. In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant has the burden
of establishing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, either
by the government or by forces that the government is unable or unwilling to control.
Villegas v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021). “To be eligible for
withholding of removal the petitioner must discharge this burden by a ‘clear
probability.’” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021).
The BIA determined that Osorio Claros failed to challenge the IJ’s finding
that she did not demonstrate that the government of El Salvador is unable or
unwilling to control the father of her son, the source of her alleged persecution.
Because the BIA found that Osorio Claros forfeited that dispositive issue, it declined
to address (1) whether she credibly testified and adequately corroborated her claim
or (2) whether she established that she was harmed in the past or would be persecuted
in the future on account of either a cognizable protected group or a qualifying
political opinion.
The record supports the BIA’s determination. Osorio Claros’s brief to the
BIA did not argue that the Salvadoran government would be unable or unwilling to
control her son’s father. Osorio-Claros thus has not shown that the BIA erred in

-- 2 of 3 --

3
deeming this issue forfeited, and we therefore conclude that it is unexhausted. See
Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Amaya v. Garland,
15 F.4th 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2021).
Because this issue decides Osorio Claros’s eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal, we deny her petition as to these claims.
2. Osorio Claros failed to challenge the basis of the BIA’s decision as to
her eligibility for protection under the CAT. The BIA denied Osorio Claros’s
application for protection under the CAT on similar grounds, finding that Osorio
Claros provided only conclusory statements about her eligibility. Osorio Claros has
not provided this court with any substantive arguments to show that the BIA’s
findings were erroneous.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --