Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Paola VASQUEZ-GONZALEZ, AKA Paola Vazquez, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Paola Vasquez-Gonzalez, 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 the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Vasquez-Gonzalez’s contentions as to past persecution, childhood abuse, and sexual assault because they were not presented to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that her fear of future persecution is not on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”). Thus, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Vasquez-Gonzalez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). The BIA did not otherwise err in its analysis of her CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-73475
Decided: January 24, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)