Maradiaga v. Holder ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARMEN MARADIAGA, No. 08-70174
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-330-197
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Carmen Maradiaga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
Maradiaga fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that her
asylum application was time-barred, and she also does not challenge the denial of
her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to these claims.
Maradiaga testified that after gang members beat her mother, she spoke out
by going to a local television station, and that she subsequently received death
threats. The agency found Maradiaga failed to demonstrate a clear probability of
persecution on account of any of the statutorily protected grounds. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-
91 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central
reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Maradiaga’s
withholding of removal claim fails. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th
Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70174