Margarita Flores-Nava v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 13, 2020
• Docket: 15-71767
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARITA FLORES-NAVA, No. 15-71767

Petitioner, Agency No. A088-781-700

v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Margarita Flores-Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from 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

* 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). the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th

Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Flores-Nava

failed to establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Li v.

Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Our caselaw

characterizes persecution as an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of

suffering or harm . . . in a way regarded as offensive.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)); see also Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)

(an applicant who alleges past persecution has the burden of proving that the

treatment rises to the level of persecution).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Flores-Nava

failed to establish that the harm she fears in Mexico would be on account of a

protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see

also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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 Flores-Nava’s contention that she will be

harmed on account of a proposed particular social group of female deportees

because she failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

2 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not

presented to the agency).

Thus, Flores-Nava’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Flores-Nava failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.