AREVALO-RAMOS V. GARLAND, No. 22-202 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 11 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLA PATRICIA AREVALO-RAMOS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-202 Agency No. A206-629-049 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2023** Portland, Oregon Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Carla Patricia Arevalo-Ramos (“Arevalo-Ramos”), a native citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum * 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). and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review. The IJ denied asylum and withholding of removal relief because of the possibility of relocation within Honduras, among other reasons. The BIA decision dismissing Arevalo-Ramos’ appeal of the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal rested exclusively on the possibility of relocation, concluding that she “did not establish that she faces a risk of persecution countrywide.” But ArevaloRamos did not provide any arguments in her opening brief before this court regarding relocation. In particular, she did not argue that she had established past persecution, such that the BIA should have placed the burden of establishing that internal relocation was possible or reasonable on the government. See Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216, 1231 (9th Cir. 2021).1 Because “[i]ssues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned,” Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996), Arevalo-Ramos has abandoned a challenge to the BIA decision’s sole basis for dismissing her appeal of the IJ’s denial of relief. 1 Arevalo-Ramos’s brief appears to recognize that she did not establish past persecution. 2 PETITION DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
