NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELY IRAHETA-DE PEREZ, No. 13-74067
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-803-552
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Aracely Iraheta-De Perez, 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 (“IJ”) 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Perez failed to establish
the harm she suffered or feared was or would be on account of a protected ground.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez’s argument as to
family as a social group 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). Thus, Perez’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fails. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-1016.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Perez failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
2 13-74067
Finally, we deny Perez’s request for “maintenance” of the stay of removal
during pendency of the proceedings because there is no stay in effect.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-74067