NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ODILIA ALVAREZ-CORRAL, No. 14-72299
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-442-862
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Secretary of Homeland Security
Submitted November 15, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,*** District
Judge.
Odilia Alvarez-Corral, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an expedited removal order reinstated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and
*
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 James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
an immigration judge’s subsequent determination that Alvarez-Corral did not have
a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not have jurisdiction to consider Alvarez-Corral’s collateral attack on
her underlying expedited removal order. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008).
The immigration judge’s decision is sufficiently detailed to satisfy the
requirements of due process. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The immigration judge’s reasonable fear determination is supported by
substantial evidence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
2016). Alvarez-Corral denied suffering past persecution or torture in Mexico.
Alvarez-Corral speculated that her ex-boyfriend might harm her if she returned to
Mexico, yet she identified no specific threats and admitted to having no recent
contact with him. Also, Alvarez-Corral mentioned only hearing stories of the
Mexican government and police’s ineffectiveness, but she has no individualized
reason to think that it would acquiesce in her being harmed. We conclude that this
evidence would not compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude that Alvarez-
Corral had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. See id. at 833.
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2