Maria De Jesus Rivas-Barrera; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DE JESUS RIVAS-BARRERA; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-793
Agency Nos.
A209-238-238
A209-238-239
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Maria De Jesus Rivas-Barrera and her son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
* 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).
FILED
AUG 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-793
their application for asylum and Rivas-Barrera’s applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention 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 questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in its determination that petitioners waived challenge to
the IJ’s determinations regarding past persecution, cognizability of their proposed
particular social groups, and internal relocation. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d
1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA’s waiver determination).
Petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of these issues are not properly before the
court because they failed to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v.
Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-
jurisdictional claim-processing rule). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
petitioners’ asylum claim and Rivas-Barrera’s withholding of removal claim.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding nexus and whether their fear of future persecution was
objectively reasonable. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-793
2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the
results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Rivas-Barrera failed to show it is more likely than not she 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --