Karla MARIA LUNA, Petitioner, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Karla Maria Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding her removable and denying her applications for cancellation of removal and 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Luna does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA's denial of her motion to remand. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).
Luna also does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency's determination that Luna's controlled substance conviction rendered her removable and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Luna failed to establish that the harm she experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (requiring that 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 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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Luna 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 October 19, 2020 order, the stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.