Wendy G. Rivera Hernandez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY G. RIVERA HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73996
Agency No. A096-071-237
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Wendy G. Rivera Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

jlf/Inventory 08-73996 2
withholding of removal. The IJ found that petitioner was not eligible for asylum
relief because her asylum application was untimely, and that petitioner failed to
establish persecution and therefore she was not entitled to asylum or withholding
of removal relief. The BIA held that petitioner had waived any challenge to the
IJ’s finding that her asylum application was untimely, and denied petitioner’s
application for withholding of removal based on her failure to establish
persecution.
Petitioner alleges that the BIA erred in denying her request for asylum and
withholding relief because she fears persecution from criminal gangs, and because
the BIA failed to fully articulate its reasons for dismissing her appeal.
Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she had waived
any challenge to the denial of her asylum application, and therefore petitioner has
waived any arguments concerning whether she merited asylum relief. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The record
does not compel reversal of the BIA’s denial of her withholding of removal claim
which was based on petitioner’s failure to establish that she was persecuted by
gangs in Guatemala, or that she was a member of a particular social group so as to
merit withholding of removal relief. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 855 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

jlf/Inventory 08-73996 3
858-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not a
particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected ground).
Finally, the BIA properly articulated its holding and reasoning, and its decision did
not violate petitioner’s due process rights. See Falcon Cariche v. Ashcroft, 350
F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --