HERNESTINA ARRIETA ROBLES; JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ MIRANDA; J.H.A., a minor; G.H.A., a minor v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERNESTINA ARRIETA ROBLES; JOSE
LUIS HERNANDEZ MIRANDA; J.H.A., a
minor; G.H.A., a minor,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72919
Agency Nos. A095-763-868
A208-118-943
A208-118-944
A208-120-327
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
Petitioners Hernestina Arrieta Robles, Jose Hernandez Miranda, and their two
* 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
minor sons (collectively, Petitioners) seek review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). When, as
here, the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, we must limit our
review to the BIA’s decision “except to the extent that the [immigration judge’s]
opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Petitioners do not challenge in their opening brief the BIA’s dispositive
finding that their proposed particular social group was not cognizable because it was
impermissibly defined by the harm suffered. Petitioners likewise make no specific
and distinct argument that the BIA erred in concluding that they did not show the
clear likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of a government official upon
removal to Mexico, which is required for CAT relief. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr,
962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Therefore, any challenges to these
determinations that are dispositive of Petitioners’ claims for relief are forfeited. See
Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --