FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBA EUGENIA RAMOS-BARRIOS, No. 12-70476
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-920-668
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Alba Eugenia Ramos-Barrios, 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, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Ramos-Barrios’s contentions that the BIA’s analysis was
inadequate and incomplete. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision).
The record does not compel the conclusion that Ramos-Barrios established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th
Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny the petition as to her asylum claim.
Ramos-Barrios testified she was robbed and extorted by gang members in
Guatemala, and that she fears they will continue to do so if she returns. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ramos-Barrios failed to establish
that gang members targeted her on account of a protected ground. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”); see also Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (petitioner’s “desire to
be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by
2 12-74076
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). In light of this conclusion,
we reject Ramos-Barrios’s contention that remand is required under Perdomo v.
Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition as to her
withholding of removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Ramos-Barrios failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70476