FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA JOSEFA GOMEZ-COREAS, No. 07-72658
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-007-606
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Josefa Gomez-Coreas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
*
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).
PR/Research
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 n.1 (1992), and de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, although the
rape by her employer and his subsequent refusal to allow her to leave his home for
two years amounted to persecution on account of her particular social group,
Gomez-Coreas failed to demonstrate she was persecuted by the government or
forces the government was unable or unwilling to control. See Castro-Perez v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Even if we were to assume . . .
that Castro-Perez is a member of a particular social group and that the rapes she
suffered were persecution because of her membership in that group, her asylum
claim fails because she has not shown that . . . the government of Honduras is
unable or unwilling to control rape in that country.”). Accordingly, Gomez-
Coreas’ asylum claim fails.
Because Gomez-Coreas did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PR/Research 2 07-72658
Finally, Gomez-Coreas’ contention that the BIA abused its discretion and
violated her due process rights by “not acknowledging, addressing, and
adjudicating” her motion to terminate is not supported by the record. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice
to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
PR/Research 3 07-72658