Lovelia Valdovinos Duarte v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOVELIA VALDOVINOS DUARTE, No. 15-72026
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-623-051
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Lovelia Valdovinos Duarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Valdovinos Duarte’s social group claim
based on being a Christian female business owner because she failed to raise it
before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). To the
extent she raises a protected ground of political opinion, we also lack jurisdiction
to consider that claim. Id.Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Valdovinos
Duarte failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she experienced or fears in
Mexico and a protected ground, including her family and gang recruitment social
groups. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if
membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show
that “persecution was or will be on account of [her] membership in such group”);
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, Valdovinos Duarte’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we do
2 15-72026
not reach Valdovinos Duarte’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of these
claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and
agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Valdovinos Duarte 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 Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
Valdovino Duarte’s contentions that the agency violated her due process
rights fail. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To
prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of
rights and prejudice.”).
The record does not support Valdovinos Duarte’s contentions that the BIA
failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claims. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-72026