Gloria DOSAL CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: November 13, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Violeta Delgado, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Violeta Delgado, Unit 200 Santa Ana, CA, Virginia Gordon, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Gloria Dosal Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Dosal Carrillo failed to establish she suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091-93 (9th Cir. 2010) (no past persecution where petitioner did not personally suffer harm). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Dosal Carrillo failed to establish the harm she fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See 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”). Thus, Dosal Carrillo's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Dosal Carrillo 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).
As stated in the court's February 23, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.