FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA PAOLA ROSALES VELIZ, No. 12-73551
AKA Sylvia Rosales De Aquino,
Agency No. A095-789-046
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sylvia Paola Rosales Veliz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a 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 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 the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the finding that Rosales Veliz established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92
(9th Cir. 2010). We reject Rosales Veliz’s contentions that the agency’s analysis
was insufficient and improper. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to her
asylum claim.
Rosales Veliz testified that she and her husband were the victims of a
carjacking in Guatemala and she fears further harm if returned. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that even if Rosales Veliz
established she is a member of a particular social group of women in Guatemala,
she did not establish past persecution or clear probability of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741
(9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]o demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at least one central
reason’ for persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground was a cause of
the persecutors’ acts.”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
2 12-73551
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Rosales Veliz’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d
1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Rosales
Veliz’s CAT claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she
would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d
1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We reject Rosales Veliz’s contention that the
agency did not analyze her claim sufficiently.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73551