RUIZ CASTANEDA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-05No. No. 15-71065

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusions that the applicant failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground for asylum and withholding of removal purposes, and failed to satisfy the requirements for Convention Against Torture protection.

Maria Del Rosa Ruiz-Castaneda, a Mexican citizen, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of her appeal seeking asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, and cancellation of removal. The court reviewed the immigration judge's denial of these applications and found substantial evidence supporting the agency's determinations on the claims that were challenged.

The court upheld the agency's finding that Ruiz-Castaneda did not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal because she failed to show persecution on account of a legally protected ground. The court similarly upheld the denial of Convention Against Torture protection because she did not demonstrate it was more likely than not that she would be tortured by the Mexican government or with its consent or acquiescence upon return.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether applicant established persecution on account of a protected ground
Whether applicant qualified for withholding of removal
Whether applicant met the standard for Convention Against Torture protection

Procedural posture

The court reviewed de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings in this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge's denial of asylum and related relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Del Rosa Ruiz-Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIAs interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys conclusion that Ruiz-Castaneda failed to establish she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicants “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Ruiz-Castanedas claim for withholding of removal fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT protection because Ruiz-Castaneda failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard for CAT protection).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. Ruiz-Castaneda does not challenge the agencys denial of her asylum application as time-barred or the denial of her application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship.