Amalia Mendoza Artiga v. Loretta E. Lynch

Good Law
610 F. App'x 693
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 201513-71688California308 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Amalia Mendoza Artiga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Mendoza Artiga’s asylum application was timely, she failed to demonstrate that her claimed past persecution or feared persecution was on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.