NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REINA ELIZABETH MARTINEZ-DE No. 18-72779
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A206-898-080
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reina Elizabeth Martinez-De Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying her application for
asylum, 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 de novo claims
of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d
733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We also review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v.
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference
is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations,
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Martinez-De Hernandez’s challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedure
fail. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003)
(concluding that the BIA did not violate petitioners’ due process rights by
streamlining their appeal); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
The agency did not err in determining that Martinez-De Hernandez failed to
establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular
group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members
who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and
(3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,
26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
2 18-72779
conclusion that Martinez-De Hernandez failed to establish she would otherwise be
persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 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, Martinez-De Hernandez’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martinez-De Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72779