NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AIDA PEREZ HERRERA, No. 14-73221
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-280-430
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Respondent’s unopposed motion to supplement the record is granted.
Aida Perez Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for withholding of
*
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).
removal. We have 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 de novo due process contentions, Larita-Martinez v.
INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s dispositive conclusion that
Perez Herrera failed to establish the government of Mexico was or would be
unwilling or unable to control her alleged persecutor. See Castro-Perez v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (considering country reports and
petitioner’s specific case in determining petitioner failed to establish the
government was unable or unwilling to control persecutors); see also Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding
government unwilling or unable to control private persecutors where police took
reports and investigated complaints, though unable to solve crimes). We reject
Perez Herrera’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the evidence.
Thus, Perez Herrera’s claim for withholding of removal fails.
Finally, we reject Perez Herrera’s due process claim because she failed to
establish the IJ’s time limitation on closing arguments prejudiced her case. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a petitioner must
2 14-73221
show prejudice to establish a due process violation).
The 90-day stay of proceedings granted October 6, 2015, has expired.
Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73221