Heydi Somoza v. Loretta E. Lynch , 609 F. App'x 419 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEYDI MARISOL SOMOZA, No. 11-73525
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-031-432
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Heydi Marisol Somoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Somoza testified that gang members killed her boyfriend – a bus driver who
refused to pay an extortion demand – and afterwards threatened to kill her if she
remained in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Somoza failed to establish her experiences in El Salvador rise to the level of
persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005)
(record did not compel finding threats constituted persecution); see also Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (no past persecution where harm to
others was not part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Somoza failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative). Thus, we deny the petition as to Somoza’s
asylum claim.
Because Somoza did not establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 11-73525
Finally, Somoza does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she waived
appeal of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73525