NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VILMA LETICIA SANTOS DIAZ, No. 15-73452
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-824-042
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Vilma Leticia Santos Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of
removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and administrative
*
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).
closure. 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Santos Diaz’s challenge to the agency’s
denial of administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d
1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santos Diaz
failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground.
See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (applicant
seeking withholding of removal must prove that a protected ground was a reason
for persecution); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Santos Diaz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Santos Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v.
2 15-73452
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Santos Diaz’s contention that the BIA violated due process by
failing to rule on her “motion to remand” as raised in her appeal brief to the BIA.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-73452