FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIA GARCIA VERONICA, No. 11-72874
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-163-068
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Antonia Garcia Veronica, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the BIA’s factual findings. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Garcia Veronica testified that she separated from her abusive former
common-law husband in 1998, she has not been threatened by him since 2000, and
she married another man in 2005. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that, even if Garcia Veronica credibly established past persecution
based on membership in a particular social group, there has been a fundamental
change in circumstances such that Garcia Veronica does not face a clear
probability of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see also Popova v.
INS, 273 F.3d 1251, 1260 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence regarding changed
circumstances must show that “there has been a change in the conditions that
would affect [the applicant] individually”). Accordingly, Garcia Veronica’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia Veronica failed to establish that it is more likely than not “that a
government official or person acting in an official capacity” would torture her or
acquiesce in her torture if she returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 11-72874
We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia Veronica’s claims that her detention
and the denial of her change of venue requests violated her due process rights,
because she did not raise these arguments in her appeal to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement not met where
appeal “nowhere mention[ed]” petitioner’s due process challenge). We similarly
lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia Veronica’s claims related to her family’s fear
of drug traffickers, her race, or her request for humanitarian relief. See id.
Finally, our review is limited to the administrative record and thus we do not
consider materials included with petitioner’s opening brief that were not available
to the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-72874