Jessica Janeth Echeverria-De Escobar; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSICA JANETH ECHEVERRIA-DE
ESCOBAR; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72426
Agency Nos. A209-288-765
A209-288-766
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jessica Janeth Echeverria-De Escobar and her minor son, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying their application for asylum, and denying Echeverria-De
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72426
Escobar’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not raise, and therefore waive, any
challenge to the BIA’s determinations that their proposed particular social group
was not cognizable and that they failed to establish a nexus to a family-based
particular social group. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80
(9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
petitioners are not members of a particular social group analogous to the group
analyzed in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2013)
(en banc) (individuals who testify against gang members can constitute a particular
social group).
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether the harm they
suffered rose to the level of persecution and whether the Salvadoran government is
unable or unwilling to protect them because the BIA did not deny relief on these
grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72426
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon
by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Echeverria-De Escobar’s withholding
of removal claim fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection because
Echeverria-De Escobar failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated
their right to due process or incorrectly interpreted the law because they failed to
raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings
below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --