FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA MARIA MORALES, No. 12-71307
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-802-766
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ana Maria Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and a motion
*
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).
for continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Annachamy v. Holder, 733 F.3d 254, 258 (9th
Cir. 2013), and for substantial evidence the factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Morales’ past
experiences in Guatemala, including the incident with the military in 1987, did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th
Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel finding of
past persecution). Further, Morales did not establish that the death of extended
family members were part of a pattern of persecution tied to Morales. See
Wakkary, 558 F. 3d at 1060. We lack jurisdiction to consider Morales’
humanitarian asylum claim because she did not raise it to the agency. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims
not presented in administrative proceedings below). Morales’ related due process
claim regarding humanitarian asylum fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Morales failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution where her husband returned
2 12-71307
to Guatemala without problems. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.
2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even
undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country
without incident.”). Thus, Morales’ asylum claim fails.
Because Morales failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
Morales does not make any specific arguments with respect to CAT. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
We reject Morales’ contention that due process was violated by denial of
continuance. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and prejudice to prevail
on a due process challenge). See also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ...
speculation.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71307