Maira Ventura-Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Maira Ventura-Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr.

584 F. App'x 556

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2014

Docket11-73914

StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 556 (Maira Ventura-Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maira Ventura-Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr., 584 F. App'x 556 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*557 MEMORANDUM **

Maira Ventura-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ventura-Torres did not demonstrate her past experiences or any future harm were or would be on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ventura-Torres’s unexhausted contentions that she is a member of a particular social group of females or a member of a political group that opposed the MS-13 gangs. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ventura-Torres’s unexhausted contention that she is eligible for asylum even in the absence of well-founded future fear. See id. Accordingly, Ventura-Torres’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ventura-Torres failed to establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*557 MEMORANDUM **

Maira Ventura-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ventura-Torres did not demonstrate her past experiences or any future harm were or would be on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ventura-Torres’s unexhausted contentions that she is a member of a particular social group of females or a member of a political group that opposed the MS-13 gangs. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ventura-Torres’s unexhausted contention that she is eligible for asylum even in the absence of well-founded future fear. See id. Accordingly, Ventura-Torres’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ventura-Torres failed to establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 F. App'x 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maira-ventura-torres-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack