FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIA VERONICA PINEDA- No. 09-71598
GALDAMEZ,
Agency No. A097-318-656
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Veronica Pineda-Galdamez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th
Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Pineda-Galdamez did not establish past persecution based on her sexual assault by
four gang members because she failed to show a nexus between the harm she
suffered and one of the statutorily protected grounds. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d
1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (a petitioner cannot establish a nexus to a protected
ground by inference “unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from
the facts in evidence”). As this incident and retaliatory harassment for reporting
the crime is the only basis for petitioner’s claim of past persecution and of a
well-founded fear of future persecution, her asylum claim fails. See id.
Because Pineda-Galdamez did not establish eligibility for asylum, it
necessarily follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
Pineda-Galdamez’s due process contentions that the BIA failed to fully
articulate its reasons for denial, did not perform the minimal review necessary, and
did not refer correctly to or explicitly adopt the IJ’s opinion are belied by the
record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71598