NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARITA FLORES-NAVA, No. 15-71767
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-781-700
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Margarita Flores-Nava, 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”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
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 Flores-Nava
failed to establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Our caselaw
characterizes persecution as an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of
suffering or harm . . . in a way regarded as offensive.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)
(an applicant who alleges past persecution has the burden of proving that the
treatment rises to the level of persecution).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Flores-Nava
failed to establish that the harm she fears in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Flores-Nava’s contention that she will be
harmed on account of a proposed particular social group of female deportees
because she failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
2
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
Thus, Flores-Nava’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Flores-Nava failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3