FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA PARRA-DIEGO, No. 12-73491
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-166-442
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Yolanda Parra-Diego, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if Parra-Diego timely filed her application for asylum, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that she failed to establish past persecution.
See Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (persecution
must have occurred in the proposed country of removal). We reject Parra-Diego’s
contention that Gonzalez-Medina was wrongly decided. Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Parra-Diego did not demonstrate a well-founded
future fear on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010) (the desire to be free from criminal harassment and
violence is not a nexus to a protected ground); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (future harm was speculative); cf. Canales-Vargas v.
Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 745 (9th Cir. 2006) (escalating threats gave the petitioner
a well-founded fear of future persecution). Thus, Parra-Diego’s asylum claim fails.
Because Parra-Diego failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73491