FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAYANA GONZALEZ-ESPANA; et. al., No. 09-71508
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A078-239-915
A078-239-964
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN , and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Dayana Gonzalez-Espana and her son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due process claims,
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish their experiences constituted past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d
929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone...constitute past persecution in
only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to
cause significant actual suffering or harm.”). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to establish an objective basis for a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003); Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner
must provide credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that
would support a reasonable fear of persecution). The court lacks jurisdiction to
consider petitioner’s claim that she is a member of a social group of “single young
female(s) from Guatemala who have been threatened with death in that country,”
based on the decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010) because
09-71508
petitioner did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Petitioners fail to raise any argument in the opening brief with respect to
their withholding of removal claim and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are
deemed abandoned).
Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the IJ’s failure to mention their
expert witness’ statement in her decision violated due process because any alleged
error by the IJ was corrected by the BIA. See Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010,
1013 (9th Cir. 1998) (any error committed by the IJ may be rendered harmless by
the BIA’s application of the correct legal standard).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
09-71508