`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`JAN 22 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`DOMINGA MATIAS-PABLO, et al.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
`JAMES R. MCHENRY III, Acting Attorney
`General,
`
` Respondent.
`
`
`
` No. 23-4119
`
`Agency Nos.
`A201-768-384
`A201-768-385
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`On Petition for Review of an Order of the
`Board of Immigration Appeals
`
`Submitted January 17, 2025**
`Pasadena, California
`
`
`Before: TALLMAN, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Lead Petitioner1 Dominga Matias-Pablo, native and citizen of Guatemala,
`
`seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming 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).
`
`1 Petitioners consist of Dominga Matias-Pablo and her minor son.
`
`
`
`denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
`
`Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial
`
`evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
`
`1. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Matias-Pablo’s claims for asylum
`
`and withholding of removal because, in part, it found that Matias-Pablo failed to
`
`establish that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her from harms
`
`she endured from private parties. See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 927 (9th
`
`Cir. 2010). The BIA held that because Matias-Pablo failed to challenge that
`
`finding on appeal, she waived the issue. In her Opening Brief to our court, Matias-
`
`Pablo seems to have filed a very similar brief to the one she submitted to the BIA
`
`and thus has not disputed the BIA’s waiver holding.2 See Corro-Barragan v.
`
`Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). We therefore deny the petition as
`
`to her asylum and withholding of removal claims.
`
`2. The BIA denied CAT protection after affirming the IJ’s conclusions that
`
`Petitioner’s attackers were private actors and that the government would not
`
`consent to or acquiesce in any torture of Matias-Pablo if she returned to
`
`Guatemala. The BIA also concluded that Matias-Pablo’s country conditions
`
`
`2 Indeed, because Matias-Pablo’s Opening Brief did not comply with Federal Rule
`of Appellate Procedure 28, it would be within our discretion to disregard it.
`
`
`
`2
`
`23-4119
`
`
`
`evidence was too generalized to support a CAT claim. Matias-Pablo’s Opening
`
`Brief does not acknowledge those holdings by the BIA, let alone offer any basis to
`
`reject them, so we deny the petition as to the CAT claim as well.
`
`Petition DENIED.
`
`
`
`3
`
`23-4119
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
