FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIA ESTRADA-ROSALES, No. 07-75038
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-118-263
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Estrada-Rosales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Estrada-Rosales’s due process and ineffective
assistance of counsel claims because she failed to raise these claims before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Estrada-
Rosales failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1060 (no past persecution where harm to others was not part of “a pattern of
persecution closely tied to” petitioner); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.
2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are
singled out on account of a protected ground.”); Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088,
1089 (9th Cir. 2000) (general civil strife or widespread random violence is not
sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution).
Because Estrada-Rosales failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily cannot demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 07-75038
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Estrada-Rosales failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official if returned to El
Salvador. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(generalized evidence of violence and crime not particular to petitioner insufficient
to establish CAT eligibility).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 07-75038