introduction of significant testimony.” (cleaned up)). Indeed, Mazariego testified

in detail about her alleged persecution by the gang. The record also does not

support Mazariego’s claim that her counsel was prevented from arguing that she

was a member of a particular social group of “Salvadoran women.” The IJ asked

Mazariego’s counsel what the proposed social group was twice, and Mazariego’s

counsel responded both times that the proposed social group was her family. Thus,

Mazariego was not deprived of a full and fair hearing.

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mazariego was not

targeted in the past and would not be targeted in the future on account of her family

membership. To be eligible for asylum, Mazariego must establish a nexus between

her past or feared harm and a protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846

F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017). The BIA determined that the gang’s attempts to

extort Mazariego and one gang member’s statement that, “If I had my mom [in the

USA], that I could get the money” are more indicative of financial motive than

personal animosity or a vendetta against her family. Mazariego offers no evidence

to the contrary. Rather, she testified during her hearing that she did not know why

the gang members targeted her. Moreover, she acknowledged in her written

asylum application that the gang was likely financially motivated. The record thus

4 does not compel a finding that Mazariego was targeted on account of her family

membership.

3. Because Mazariego raised the issue for the first time on appeal, the BIA did

not err when it declined to consider Mazariego’s claim to membership in the

proposed social group of “Salvadoran women.” As discussed, the record does not

support Mazariego’s argument that the IJ prevented her from claiming membership

in this proposed social group at her hearing. And we have clearly held that the

BIA does not err when it declines to consider proposed particular social groups

raised for the first time on appeal. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297

(9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

PETITION DENIED.

5