FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA CONSUELO HERNANDEZ- No. 09-73699
PALMA,
Agency No. A098-919-499
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Consuelo Hernandez-Palma, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
*
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).
application for asylum, withholding of 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 factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Hernandez-Palma
established changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing her late filing. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to her asylum
claim.
We lack jurisdiction to review Hernandez-Palma’s contentions that she is a
member of two particular social groups because she failed to raise these issues to
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition,
we do not consider the new allegations and documentary evidence in Hernandez-
Palma’s opening brief because our review is limited to the administrative record
underlying the IJ’s decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez-
Palma did not establish past persecution or a clear probability of persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740
2 09-73699
(9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one
central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). The record does not show
any harm or threats to Hernandez-Palma while she was in Guatemala or any link
between her and the disappearance of her brother. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060
(petitioner failed to show murder of friend and attempted murder of pastor were
“part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to” himself) (internal citation and
quotation omitted). Further, Hernandez-Palma’s fear of harm based on general
levels of crime and violence in Guatemala or on threats to family members from
gangs seeking money does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Singh
v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[m]ere generalized lawlessness and
violence” is generally insufficient); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“[a]n alien’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”).
Accordingly, Hernandez-Palma’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Hernandez-Palma failed to establish it is more likely than not she would
be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-73699