Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Krissia Ibeth Larin-Contreras, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board had dismissed her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. A panel of Judges Silverman, Forrest, and VanDyke decided the matter without oral argument on submission dated October 27, 2026. The memorandum was filed November 3, 2026, and the court recited jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. section 1252.
The memorandum describes the agency proceedings only in outline and does not recount the facts underlying her claims. The key agency ruling it identifies is the immigration judge's dispositive determination that her proposed particular social group is not cognizable, meaning it did not qualify as a legally recognized group for purposes of relief. According to the panel, the Board concluded that she had waived review of that determination.
In her petition for review she also raised contentions about credibility, past persecution, and nexus, and she moved to stay removal. The court's treatment of each of these points turned on what the Board had actually decided and what she had actually contested in the Ninth Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition for review. On asylum and withholding of removal, the panel observed that Larin-Contreras does not challenge the Board's conclusion that she waived review of the immigration judge's dispositive finding that her proposed particular social group is not cognizable. Citing Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013), the court therefore did not address those issues. Because the unchallenged social-group ground was dispositive, the asylum and withholding claims failed on that basis.
The panel likewise noted that she does not challenge the agency's denial of CAT protection, again citing Lopez-Vasquez, and so it did not address that denial. The court also declined to consider her contentions about credibility, past persecution, and nexus. It reasoned that the Board did not deny relief on those grounds, and it quoted Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011), for the rule that on review of a Board decision a court considers only the grounds the agency relied upon.
The court denied the motion to stay removal as moot and entered the disposition PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. The panel did not decide whether her proposed group is cognizable, whether she was credible, whether she suffered past persecution, or whether any harm was connected to a protected ground. The memorandum is not for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner who does not challenge the Board's conclusion that she waived review of an immigration judge's dispositive ruling gives the Ninth Circuit no basis to disturb that ruling.
- On review of a Board decision, the court considers only the grounds the Board relied upon, so arguments about credibility, past persecution, and nexus were not reached when the Board did not deny relief on them.
- Not challenging the agency's denial of CAT protection means the court will not address that claim, even though it is a separate form of relief from asylum and withholding.
- The motion to stay removal was denied as moot once the petition was denied.
- The memorandum is unpublished and non-precedential except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, and it did not decide the merits of the underlying protection claims.
Why It Matters
This memorandum shows how a petition can fail without any ruling on the merits of the underlying protection claims. The immigration judge's social-group ruling was dispositive, the Board treated review of it as waived, and the petitioner did not contest that waiver conclusion in the Ninth Circuit. As a result, her separate arguments about credibility, past persecution, and nexus could not change the outcome, because the Board had not relied on them. A petitioner must challenge each ground on which the agency actually rested its decision, including a Board finding that an issue was waived.
Because the disposition is unpublished, it carries no precedential weight and only limited citation value under Rule 36-3. It does not decide whether the Board's waiver conclusion was correct, since that conclusion was never contested, and it expresses no view on whether the proposed social group could qualify. The practical result is that the denial of relief stands, and the memorandum does not discuss any other avenues of relief.