ZENAIDA ESPERANZA CHULE- LOPEZ, AKA Zenaida Esperanza Chilel Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZENAIDA ESPERANZA CHULE-
LOPEZ, AKA Zenaida Esperanza Chilel
Lopez; MARTA ALICIA CHULE-LOPZ,
AKA Marta Alicia Chule-Lopez, AKA
Marta Alicia Chilel Lopez,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70987
Agency Nos. A208-589-358
A208-589-359
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUN 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Petitioner Zenaida Esperanza Chule-Lopez (“Lead Petitioner”) and her
minor daughter (together, “Petitioners”), are natives and citizens of Guatemala.
They petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review.
First, Petitioners argue that the BIA erred by failing to review on appeal
Petitioners’ objection to the IJ’s decision to exclude from evidence two
declarations. We conclude that while the BIA erred by failing to address this
objection, the error was harmless because the Petitioners did not demonstrate that
they were prejudiced by the exclusion. See Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216,
1229 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[t]he BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a
petitioner” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Pagayon v. Holder, 675
F.3d 1182, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that the IJ’s exclusion of evidence and
testimony did not amount to a due process violation because the petitioner did not
establish prejudice).
Second, Petitioners’ brief recited the legal standard governing CAT claims,
but did not provide any argument why the BIA erred in denying CAT protection.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Accordingly, we deem any argument as to this claim waived. See Corro-Barragan
v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013).
Third, even assuming that the BIA erred in rejecting Lead Petitioner’s
proposed particular social group (“PSG”) of “female victims of domestic violence
or gender based violence,” the record does not compel the conclusion that Lead
Petitioner’s former domestic partner abused her on account of this PSG or her
identity as an indigenous Guatemalan.
Finally, the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish a pattern
or practice of persecution against indigenous Guatemalan women is supported by
substantial evidence. The country conditions evidence in the record demonstrates
that indigenous Guatemalans, and particularly women, experience discrimination,
but does not compel the conclusion that this discrimination amounts to persecution.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --