Maria Martinez-Lopez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, AKA Maria No. 18-73375
Garcia, AKA Maria Guadalupe Garcia
Lopez, Agency No. A205-312-852
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Martinez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Martinez-Lopez’s challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fail. See
Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that
the BIA did not violate petitioners’ due process rights by streamlining their
appeal); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
to prevail on a due process claim).
To the extent Martinez-Lopez challenges the agency’s determination that she
failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely
filing of her asylum application, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Martinez-Lopez’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Martinez-Lopez
failed to establish she suffered harm in Mexico that rose to the level of persecution.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that
2 18-73375
persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Martinez-Lopez failed to establish that any harm she fears in Mexico would be on
account of a protected ground. 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.”). Thus, Martinez-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martinez-Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture
speculative).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinez-Lopez’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-73375