Yolanda Raxic-Carreto v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 28 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    YOLANDA MERARI RAXIC-CARRETO,                   No.    14-70731
                    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A087-903-722
                         On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges
          Yolanda Merari Raxic-Carreto, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
    for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
    appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum
    and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
                 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey,
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
          The record does not compel the conclusion that Raxic-Carreto established
    extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application.
    See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 
    612 F.3d 1088
    , 1091-92
    (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Raxic-Carreto’s asylum claim fails.
          Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Raxic-Carreto
    failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground.
    See Zetino v. Holder, 
    622 F.3d 1007
    , 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to
    be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by
    gang members has no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Raxic-Carreto’s
    withholding of removal claim fails.
                                             2                                  14-70731

Document Info

DocketNumber: 14-70731

Filed Date: 12/28/2017

Modified Date: 12/28/2017