NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RITA BETY GARCIA-PEREZ, No. 14-73276
Petitioner,
Agency No. A095-723-208
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,*** District
Judge.
Rita Bety Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
from a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the untimely
filing of Garcia’s asylum application was not excused by “extraordinary
circumstances.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Contrary to her assertions, Garcia
received sufficient notice of the one-year asylum bar and evidentiary burden to show
extraordinary circumstances both through the asylum application instructions and
Notice to Appear.
2. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Garcia failed to
establish a nexus between her claimed persecution and a statutorily protected
ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3).1 Substantial evidence also supported
the BIA’s conclusion that Garcia had not proved that threats against her were
motivated by her political opinion instead of gang members’ desire to increase their
own power and influence.
3. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Garcia had not
demonstrated that her feared persecution would rise to the level of torture, an
1
Garcia’s opening brief raises for the first time an argument that threats to her
child were gender discrimination. Because this argument was not raised before the
agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135
(9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
2
“extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment.” Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860,
871 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial
evidence also supported the BIA’s determination that Garcia had not shown the
Salvadoran government’s acquiescence in any threatened torture. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
3