NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAOLA VASQUEZ-GONZALEZ, AKA No. 17-73475
Paola Vazquez,
Agency No. A098-916-215
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Paola Vasquez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Vasquez-Gonzalez’s contentions as to past
persecution, childhood abuse, and sexual assault because they were not presented
to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Further,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that her fear of future persecution
is not on account of a protected ground. See 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 bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). Thus, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding
of removal claims.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Vasquez-Gonzalez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). The BIA did not otherwise err in its
analysis of her CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 17-73475