NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, No. 18-72599
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-266-421
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Alexandra Ferreira Da Silva, a native and citizen of Brazil, and a citizen of
Portugal, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and review de novo due process
claims, Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ferreira Da
Silva failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted in Brazil or Portugal
on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th
Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an
applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his
membership in such group”); 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, Ferreira Da Silva’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ferreira Da Silva failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Brazil or Portugal. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that
2 18-72599
petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).
We reject Ferreira Da Silva’s contention that the IJ violated her due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring substantial
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
All pending motions are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72599