NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
GLORIA DOSAL CARRILLO, No. 15-72887
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-548-737
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.
Gloria Dosal Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Dosal Carrillo
failed to establish she suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091-93 (9th Cir. 2010) (no past persecution
where petitioner did not personally suffer harm). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Dosal Carrillo failed to establish the harm
she fears in Mexico would be 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, Dosal Carrillo’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Dosal Carrillo 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).
As stated in the court’s February 23, 2016 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-72887