Lorena Espinoza Aguilar v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENA ESPINOZA AGUILAR, AKA No. 17-70260
Lorena Espinoza Andrade,
Agency No. A208-309-187
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 11, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: BOGGS,** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lorena Espinoza Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal
from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition.
1. The IJ refused to review the documents that Espinoza proffered at her
hearing, simply assuming that they only showed that “Mexico has a lot of crime.”
We assume arguendo that Espinoza, who appeared pro se and was detained at the
time of her hearing, was thereby denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence
on her behalf. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (4)(B); Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725,
727-28 (9th Cir. 2000). But, even assuming a due process violation, Espinoza must
establish prejudice from the exclusion of evidence to obtain relief. See Gomez-
Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018). Espinoza makes no argument
about what the documents contained and never suggests what relevant fact they
would have established had the IJ admitted them. “Although, to show prejudice, we
do not always require an explanation of ‘exactly what evidence’ a petitioner would
have presented, we do require at least some indication of what a petitioner would
have sought to establish had she been allowed to fully present her case.” Garcia
Apostol v. Gonzales, 126 F. App’x 818, 821 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000)).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, on the record
before the IJ, Espinoza failed to show that she faces persecution in Mexico on
account of a protected ground. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.
2001) (stating that such a showing is required for a grant of asylum and withholding).
2
Espinoza testified that she and her family suffered mistreatment in Mexico by a gang
because she “had a business and they came to extort [her] and [she] didn’t want to
pay them.” Victimization for economic reasons does not establish persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th
Cir. 2009).
3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Espinoza
failed to demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief. The evidence does not compel the
conclusion that Espinoza would more likely than not face torture if she returned to
Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3