Rosalia Lozano Maciel; V. L. N. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSALIA LOZANO MACIEL; V. L. N.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-484
Agency Nos.
A215-906-042
A215-906-043
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 1, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District
Judge.***
Rosalia Lozano Maciel and her minor daughter, V.L.N., (collectively,
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of
* 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 Brian M. Morris, Chief Judge for the District of
Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 3 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 23-484
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of the denial by an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.
Our review is limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied. Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). Where, as here, the BIA
adopts and affirms portions of the IJ’s decision, “we treat the incorporated parts of
the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Id. (quoting Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718
(9th Cir. 2008)). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual
findings for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th
Cir. 2021).
1. The BIA did not err in finding that Petitioners waived any claim that
V.L.N.’s application stated an independent claim for asylum, withholding, or CAT
relief. Petitioners’ attorney informed the IJ that V.L.N.’s claim was “based
completely and wholly on” Lozano Maciel’s application. A party is bound by the
statements of their attorney. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634
(1962); see also Garcia v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover,
Petitioners provided no evidence to the IJ about any particular risks to young
women and teenaged girls. Instead, on appeal to the BIA and this court, they rely
solely on extra-record evidence to assert such a claim. The BIA thus did not err in
finding that Petitioners waived any independent claim V.L.N. may have had by

-- 2 of 4 --

3 23-484
failing to raise it to the IJ. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir.
2019).
2. Before this court, Petitioners do not raise any argument that the BIA
erred in finding that they forfeited any objections to the IJ’s relocation findings.1
They have thus forfeited review of those findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S.,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Fed. R. App. Proc. 28(a)(6)). In any
event, the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioners forfeited any objections to the
IJ’s relocation findings. See Honcharov, 924 F.3d at 1297. Because Petitioners do
not argue that they faced past persecution and have provided no evidence that the
Mexican government sponsors persecution of women, relocation is presumed
reasonable, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(3), and the agency did not err in
denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioners have
failed to show that it is more likely than not they will be tortured if returned to
Mexico. The BIA did not err in determining that they forfeited any argument
regarding the risk of torture to “deportees to Mexico,” because they failed to
mention any such risk before the IJ. See Honcharov, 924 F.3d at 1297. And even
1 Petitioners argue the BIA erred because it only adopted the IJ’s findings as to past
persecution and suggested the past persecution finding was dispositive. We do not
reach this issue because the agency’s relocation findings are an independently
sufficient basis to deny the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Knezevic v.
Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 23-484
on appeal to the BIA and in their petition for review, they rely exclusively on
“generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico,” which “is insufficient to
meet [the CAT] standard.” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010). Thus, the agency did not err in denying their applications for CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --