Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Holder , 464 F. App'x 558 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA YANIRA GONZALEZ- No. 07-74980
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A079-038-705
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Yanira Gonzalez-Hernandez petitions for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. The BIA held that Petitioner did not establish that she
*
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).
was persecuted on account of a protected ground. Petitioner argues that the BIA
erred by overlooking evidence that she was persecuted on account of her religion.
Because the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we
deny Petitioner’s application for review.
We have jurisdiction over this case under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The facts of the
case are known to the parties. We repeat them only as necessary.
I
When the BIA has conducted an independent review of the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) opinion, this court reviews the BIA’s decision. Sinotes-Cruz v.
Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2006). When the BIA has adopted
portions of the IJ’s opinion as its own, this court “treat[s] the IJ’s statements of
reasons as the BIA’s and review[s] the IJ’s decision.” Id.
The BIA’s determination that an alien has not established eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). “Under
the substantial evidence standard, ‘administrative findings of fact are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.’” Id. at 1185 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
2
II
To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien must show that she faces
persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.
2000). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show that
her “‘life or freedom would be threatened’ on account of one of the same protected
grounds that apply under the asylum statute.” Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d 882,
888 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)).
The BIA’s determination that Petitioner was targeted by the Mara
Salvatrucha gang (MS) for criminal purposes, rather than on account of her
religion, is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA correctly noted that there
is no evidence in the record showing that any MS member ever referred to
Petitioner’s religion while threatening her. The BIA also noted that the gang
members never objected to Petitioner’s religious activities and were only angry
that she was making negative comments about the gang. The BIA further noted
that the gang members threatened to kidnap Petitioner from her uncle’s house
because her uncle was wealthy. This evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that
MS targeted Petitioner to further its criminal agenda rather than because of her
religion. Reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard, the BIA’s
3
decision is not so unsupported by the record that “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Because Petitioner failed to show that she was targeted on account of a
protected ground, the BIA did not err in holding that Petitioner is ineligible for
asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner’s petition for review is
DENIED.
4