FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRINA GUADALUPE BOLANOS- No. 08-74730
VENTURA,
Agency No. A098-432-452
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Pedrina Guadalupe Bolanos-Ventura, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Bolanos-Ventura
did not establish past persecution based on her experiences in El Salvador. See id.
at 1153-54 (two “serious” but anonymous threats coupled with harassment and de
minimis property damage did not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s conclusion that Bolanos-Ventura failed to establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1154 (fear of future persecution
too speculative). Accordingly, Bolanos-Ventura’s asylum claim fails.
Because Bolanos-Ventura failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See id.
Finally, Bolanos-Ventura fails to raise any substantive challenge to the
denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-74730