FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ARCHILA-RIVERA, No. 07-73780
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-478-273
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 30, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District
Judge.**
Maria Archila-Rivera (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). In the alternative, she seeks post-voluntary departure relief.
Petitioner seeks asylum or withholding of removal on the ground that she
fears persecution as a member of a particular social group within the meaning of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. She correctly argues that the BIA and IJ
erred in holding that unmarried, indigent women may not constitute a protected
group. We have held otherwise. Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.
2010) (holding that women in Guatemala may constitute a particular social group).
The record does not, however, compel a finding that Petitioner suffered past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her
membership in such a group. She was a victim of robbery and random violence
that affected members of all social classes in El Salvador. The administrative
findings on the lack of a causal connection or nexus are supported by substantial
evidence. She was, therefore, not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal.
With respect to Petitioner’s application for relief under CAT, she contends
that the IJ and BIA looked only to her past experiences and did not consider all the
evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture. We presume that the IJ and
BIA reviewed the evidence in the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (we presume the BIA reviewed the record); Almaghzar v.
2
Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (we presume the IJ reviewed the
record). That evidence, while reflecting that there was widespread violence in the
country, including violence against women, did not compel a finding that such
violence amounted to torture as required for CAT protection. Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning that when multiple claims for
relief are based on essentially the same evidence, the failure to satisfy the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is strong evidence of a failure to satisfy the
high bar for obtaining CAT protection).
This court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim that the IJ should
have granted her post-voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (notably 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which restores this court’s jurisdiction over questions of
law, is only effective as to applications filed on or after May 11, 2005).
Petition for review DENIED.
3