NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORA ARACELY MENDOZA CALMO, No. 19-70921
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-720-395
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Dora Aracely Mendoza Calmo, 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 asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendoza
Calmo failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant
alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises
to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more
protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or
by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”); see also
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.”); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[M]ere economic disadvantage alone does not
rise to the level of persecution.”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th
Cir. 2003) (discrimination and harassment did not rise to the level of persecution).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza Calmo’s contentions regarding
newly proposed particular social groups and her likelihood of future persecution
that she did not raise to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction over issues that were not raised before the
agency). Mendoza Calmo does not otherwise challenge the agency’s conclusions
2 19-70921
regarding future persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief
are waived).
Thus, Mendoza Calmo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Mendoza Calmo 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 Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Mendoza Calmo’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is
denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of
the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-70921