RUIZ CASTANEDA v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Del Rosa Ruiz-Castaneda, 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, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal.¹

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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 conclusion that Ruiz-Castaneda failed to establish she would be persecuted 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, Ruiz-Castaneda's claim for withholding of removal fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Ruiz-Castaneda failed to show it is more likely than not she will 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) (stating standard for CAT protection).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ruiz-Castaneda does not challenge the agency's denial of her asylum application as time-barred or the denial of her application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship.