Ana Gomez-Romo v. Loretta E. Lynch , 610 F. App'x 644 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA LAURA GOMEZ-ROMO, AKA No. 13-72679
Laura Gomez-Romoana, AKA Myra
Vanessa Salazar, Agency No. A079-650-561
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ana Laura Gomez-Romo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
13-72231
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
for substantial evidence the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency correctly determined that Gomez-Romo’s conviction under
section 13-2002 of the Arizona Revised Statutes renders her ineligible for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Espino-Castillo v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2014) (Arizona forgery conviction is a
crime involving moral turpitude rendering petitioner ineligible for cancellation of
removal). In her opening brief, Gomez-Romo does not raise, and therefore waives,
any contention regarding the petty offense exception. See Tijani v. Holder, 628
F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
on the ground that Gomez-Romo failed to establish it is more likely than not she
would be persecuted on the basis of a protected ground if returned to Mexico. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be
2 13-72231
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 on the
ground that Gomez-Romo failed to demonstrate 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 Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
To the extent Gomez-Romo is seeking to submit new evidence by
referencing documents not included in the administrative record in her opening
brief, we decline to take judicial notice of this new evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A); Lising v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining
standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
Lastly, we reject Gomez-Romo’s contention that her removal would violate
the constitutional rights of her child. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d
589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the contention that a parent’s “deportation order
would amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the
constitutional rights of the child”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72231