Marilu Mandujano Andrade v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARILU MANDUJANO ANDRADE, et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70950
Agency Nos. A206-911-926
A206-911-927
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marilu Mandujano Andrade and her son, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70950
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency’s dispositive
finding that Andrade failed to establish a nexus between any harm that she suffered
or fears in Mexico and a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, petitioners’ asylum, humanitarian
asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Andrade failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico
was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT
relief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding family

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70950
membership as a social group because they failed to raise this claim before the IJ.
See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e are not
permitted to decide a claim that the immigration court has not considered in the
first instance.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --