NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANJUANA RANGEL-FONSECA, No. 15-73855
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-054-438
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sanjuana Rangel-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of
removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). 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 review de novo questions of law, Vinh Tan Nguyen v.
Holder, 763 F.3d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant in part and deny in part the
petition for review, and remand.
The agency did not have the benefit of our decision in Ramirez-Contreras v.
Sessions, 858 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 2017), holding that California Vehicle Code §
2800.2(a) is not a crime involving moral turpitude, when it determined that
Rangel-Fonseca’s conviction under § 2800.2(a) was categorically a crime
involving moral turpitude. We therefore remand for the agency to consider Rangel-
Fonseca’s eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Ramirez-Contreras, 853 F.3d
at 1306 (holding § 2800.2 is indivisible).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rangel-Fonseca
failed to establish a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, her withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rangel-Fonseca’s CAT
claim because she did not demonstrate a particularized threat of torture, and her
2 15-73855
generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet the
standard for relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.
3 15-73855