NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESPERANZA CARBALLO-NAVARRETE, Nos. 17-73022
19-71866
Petitioner,
Agency No. A206-848-643
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Esperanza Carballo-Navarrete, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision 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”) (petition No. 17-73022), and the BIA’s order denying her motion to
reconsider and terminate proceedings (petition No. 19-71866). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo claims of due process violations.
Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 17-73022, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Carballo-Navarrete did not establish past persecution. 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.”). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that she did not establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186-
88 (9th Cir. 2006) (in the absence of any individualized threat, record did not
compel a finding that the applicant would be singled out for persecution); see also
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (applicant did not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution where substantial evidence
2 17-73022
supported the agency’s finding that he could relocate). Thus, Carballo-Navarrete’s
asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Carballo-Navarrete failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Carballo-Navarrete 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Carballo-Navarrete’s contentions
that the agency applied incorrect legal standards and ignored evidence.
Carballo-Navarrete’s contentions that the agency violated her right to due
process fail. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process
claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”); see
also Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016) (no due process violation
where the applicant was “able to reasonably present his case”); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.10(b) (authorizing the IJ to conduct cross-examination). Thus, Carballo-
Navarrete’s request, raised in her opening brief, to remand to the immigration court
for a new hearing is denied.
As to petition No. 19-71866, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
3 17-73022
Carballo-Navarrete’s motion to reconsider and terminate, where her contention that
the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over her proceedings is foreclosed by
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he lack of time,
date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration
court of jurisdiction over her case.”).
Thus, the government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No.
12) is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so
insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693
F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 17-73022