Gabarrete-Lopez v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERLIN MARILIN GABARRETE- No. 24-3723 LOPEZ; GENESIS NICOLLE Agency Nos. VALLECILLO-GABARRETE; MARILIN A209-427-066 FERNANDA VALLECILLO- A209-427-067 GABARRETE, A209-427-068 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2025** Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Erlin Marilin Gabarrete-Lopez and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration 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). (BIA) dismissal of their challenge to an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020). Questions of law include whether a particular social group is cognizable. Id. Factual findings include determinations about a persecutor’s motives. Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 893 (9th Cir. 2021). Gabarrete-Lopez forfeits any challenge to the BIA’s determination that the harm she suffered arose from her husband’s substance abuse instead of from membership in a protected group because she never mentions, much less “specifically and distinctly” agues, the issue in her opening brief. Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Therefore, regardless of whether she belongs to a cognizable social group, she cannot challenge the BIA’s determination that she failed to satisfy the nexus requirement. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). Likewise, Gabarrete-Lopez does not contest the BIA’s determination that she previously waived any CAT claim. Hernandez, 47 F.4th at 916. Even if Gabarrete-Lopez preserved the nexus issue, she would not prevail. 2 24-3723 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that drugs and alcohol motivated her husband’s violence because Gabarrete-Lopez testified that “[her husband] never gave [her] a reason [for his abuse], specifically, but I . . . suppose it’s because he was high or drunk.” When asked if “it’s your belief that the reason you were subject to violence . . . was because of [your husband’s] drug and alcohol use,” Gabarrete-Lopez did not disagree. Therefore, the BIA properly determined that Gabarrete-Lopez’s suffering arose from her husband’s substance abuse and not from her membership in any social group. Without the required nexus, Gabarrete- Lopez does not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 358. PETITION DENIED. 3 24-3723