Ada Vargas Romero v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 440 F. App'x 551 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADA PRISCILLA VARGAS ROMERO, No. 08-71528
a.k.a. Sara Acosta-Solis,
Agency No. A098-920-726
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ada Priscilla Vargas Romero, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions.
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Vargas Romero does not challenge the agency’s finding that she failed to
show past persecution. We lack jurisdiction to consider Vargas Romero’s request
for humanitarian relief because she did not raise this claim to the IJ or BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, her
asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Vargas Romero
failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992).
Because Vargas Romero failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Vargas Romero has not made any argument in her opening brief
with respect to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
08-71528
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-71528