FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRENE MELENDEZ, No. 08-73913
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-964-718
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.
Irene Melendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,
1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Melendez failed to
establish she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237
F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We decline
to consider whether Melendez’s family constitutes a particular social group
because Melendez did not present that distinct argument to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Melendez’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Melendez failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.
2009).
2 08-73913
Finally, Melendez’s contention that she was denied due process because the
BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision is belied by the
record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must
show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-73913