Nurvarit Vieyra Carrillo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NURVARIT VIEYRA CARRILLO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70380
Agency Nos. A208-310-349
A208-310-350
A208-310-351
A208-310-352
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 6, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,*** District
Judge.
* 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 Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Nurvarit Vieyra Carrillo (“Petitioner”) and her children Miguel Angel
Vieyra Carrillo, Axel Eduardo Loza Vieyra, and Santiago Yael Loza Vieyra
(collectively, “the children”) seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition.
Here, the BIA neither cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A.
1994), nor expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion. See Rodriguez v. Holder, 683
F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012). Petitioner’s citation to Joseph v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2010), is therefore inapt. “Where . . . the BIA agrees
with and incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning,
we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir.
2016). Our review, however, “is limited to those grounds explicitly relied upon by
the Board.” Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016).
“[A]n applicant . . . need not have reported [] persecution to the authorities if
[s]he can convincingly establish that doing so would have been futile or have
subjected [her] to further abuse.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052,
1 The children applied for asylum as derivative beneficiaries of Petitioner’s
application. Because the children do not raise any independent grounds for relief,
any claims they may have will rise or fall with Petitioner’s claims. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(3).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1058 (9th Cir. 2006). Under the applicable substantial evidence standard,
however, “Petitioner must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels”
such a conclusion. Cordon-Garcia v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, the record includes evidence of legal reforms and increased efforts to protect
victims of domestic violence. To be sure, “a country’s laws are not always
reflective of actual country conditions.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d
1051, 1072 (9th Cir. 2017). The record here, however, is nowhere near as well-
developed as in Bringas-Rodriguez, and includes only general, relatively outdated
evidence of governmental apathy toward domestic abuse. We cannot conclude that
such a record compels a finding that the authorities here would have been
indifferent to Petitioner’s plight.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --