22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T424,MEMORANDUM Carien Nurien Cardoza Laro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Cardoza Laro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, because she failed to establish that she was persecuted on account of any protected ground. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir.2005) (affirming BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal where petitioners failed to prove their persecution was on account of a social group or imputed political opinion). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T451,

MEMORANDUM

Carien Nurien Cardoza Laro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Cardoza Laro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, because she failed to establish that she was persecuted on account of any protected ground. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir.2005) (affirming BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal where petitioners failed to prove their persecution was on account of a social group or imputed political opinion).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.