Maria Saenz Oviedo v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 720 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA SANTOS SAENZ OVIEDO, No. 14-73083
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-287-280
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Maria Santos Saenz Oviedo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 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 cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d
1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s
findings of fact, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency correctly determined that Saenz Oviedo’s petty theft convictions
under California Penal Code section 484 render her statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); see also Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th
Cir. 2009) (recognizing petty theft under California law as a categorical crime
involving moral turpitude). Because Saenz Oviedo has been convicted of more
than one crime involving moral turpitude, Saenz Oviedo does not qualify for the
petty offense exception. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II).
The agency found that Saenz Oviedo failed to establish a clear probability of
future persecution based on her generalized fear of violence in Honduras or her
fear that her son will be harmed because he is effeminate. Substantial evidence
supports these findings. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“An [applicant’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”); see also Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evidence did not compel a finding of future persecution). Further, we lack
2 14-73083
jurisdiction to consider the particular social group argument that Saenz Oviedo
presents in her opening brief because she did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or
claims in administrative proceedings below). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Saenz Oviedo’s withholding of removal claim.
We deny Sainz Oviedo’s request to refer the case to mediation.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73083