Aura Morales Castro v. Michael Mukasey , 435 F. App'x 677 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AURA ALICIA MORALES CASTRO, No. 08-72221
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-812-325
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Aura Alicia Morales Castro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for substantial evidence findings of fact, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Morales Castro contends she will be harmed based on her membership in a
particular social group consisting of Guatemalan women who have witnessed
serious crimes. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that she failed to
demonstrate that she was or would be persecuted on the basis of a protected
ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (fears
stemming from isolated criminal acts of violence do not provide a basis for relief).
Morales Castro’s assertion that the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to
address the gender aspect of her claim is belied by the record. See Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due
process violation). Accordingly, Morales Castro’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72221