Silthia Jimenez Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILTHIA JACQUELIN JIMENEZ No. 14-70235
RODRIGUEZ, AKA Jacqueline Jimenez
Rodriguez, Agency No. A205-139-864
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Silthia Jacquelin Jimenez Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
*
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).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
In denying Jimenez Rodriguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
the BIA relied on the social group, “individuals fearing drug violence,” identified
by the IJ. In her notice of appeal to the BIA, Jimenez Rodriguez failed to contest
the IJ’s formulation of this social group or identify an alternative proposed social
group. We lack jurisdiction to review the particular social group Jimenez
Rodriguez presents for the first time in her opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that Jimenez Rodriguez failed to establish that a protected ground is
one central reason for the harm she fears in Honduras. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (under the REAL ID Act,
petitioner must prove a protected ground is ‘one central reason’ for the
persecution); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (rape
and murder of aunt by government politician in El Salvador was personal dispute).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Jimenez
Rodriguez did not establish that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if
2 14-70235
returned to Honduras. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir.
2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-70235