NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMIRO MELGAR- No. 22-1216 CARBAJAL; YOCSAN OSMIN Agency Nos.

MELGAR-CARBAJAL, A215-769-091

A215-769-092

Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 15, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH, BENNETT, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Ramiro Melgar-Carbajal and his minor son petition for review of a decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision by an

* 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). 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 we deny the petition.

When the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano,

20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), we review the decision of the IJ, except to the

extent the BIA expressly restricted the scope of its affirmance. Abebe v. Gonzales,

432 F.3d 1037, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2005). “When the BIA adds its own reasoning,

we review both decisions.” Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.

2010). We review questions of law de novo and findings of fact for substantial

evidence. Abebe, 432 F.3d at 1039–40.

1. Petitioners argue that Melgar-Carbajal suffered past persecution at the

hands of an acquaintance, Feliciano, and that their particular social group of family

is cognizable. However, to be eligible for asylum and withholding of removal,

petitioners must establish a nexus between the past and feared harm and the

protected ground—that is, that Melgar-Carbajal’s family membership was one

central reason or a reason that Feliciano targeted him. See Santos-Ponce v.

Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021). The agency found that Feliciano’s

past mistreatment was motivated by the personal dispute between the two men, not

by family membership. It further found that petitioners had not shown that any

protected ground would be a reason for their feared future harm. Petitioners do not

2 22-1216 challenge these factual findings, which are dispositive of their asylum and

withholding claims. See id. at 890–91. In any event, the findings are supported by

substantial evidence, including Melgar-Carbajal’s own testimony attributing

Feliciano’s behavior to that personal dispute.

2. Petitioners do not contest the BIA’s finding that they failed to

meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of their CAT claims, and thus have forfeited

the issue. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996)

(“[A]n issue referred to in the appellant’s statement of the case but not discussed in

the body of the opening brief is deemed waived.”).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

3 22-1216