Marta Lillian Ortiz- Villalobos; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTA LILLIAN ORTIZ-
VILLALOBOS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-328
Agency Nos.
A201-567-005
A201-567-006
A201-567-007
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Marta Lillian Ortiz-Villalobos and her minor sons, 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
JAN 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-328
their applications for asylum, 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 deny the petition for
review.
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that minor petitioner D.E.G.-O. did
not establish nexus to a protected ground, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Ortiz-Villalobos failed to
establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Mendez-
Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (threats were
insufficient to rise to the level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland,
37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or
substantial evidence review applies, where result would be the same under either
standard). Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they
waived challenge to the IJ’s determination that Ortiz-Villalobos did not establish
her future fear is objectively reasonable, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez,
706 F.3d at 1079-80.
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-328
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See id.
Petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of their CAT claims 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, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-
jurisdictional claim-processing rule).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --