MARIA LUNA v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-24No. No. 20-71461

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Maria Luna, a Mexican citizen, sought judicial review of immigration proceedings in which an immigration judge found her removable and rejected her requests for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision and denied her motion to remand. Luna filed a pro se petition for review arguing various points.

The court found that Luna failed to raise several challenges in her opening brief, resulting in waiver of those arguments, including her objection to the remand denial and her challenge to the removal finding based on a controlled substance conviction. On the merits, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that Luna did not demonstrate her feared harm in Mexico was connected to any legally protected ground for asylum. Similarly, substantial evidence supported the denial of Convention Against Torture relief because Luna did not establish that torture by or with the involvement of Mexican government officials was more likely than not to occur upon her return.

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

Key issues

Whether asylum was warranted based on alleged harm in Mexico
Whether the harm Luna experienced or feared had a nexus to a protected ground
Whether she qualified for Convention Against Torture relief
Whether a controlled substance conviction rendered her removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal

Procedural posture

Luna appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's removal order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Karla Maria Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges decision finding her removable and denying her applications for cancellation of removal and asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Luna does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIAs denial of her motion to remand. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).

Luna also does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agencys determination that Lunas controlled substance conviction rendered her removable and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Id.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Luna failed to establish that the harm she experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (requiring that an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An aliens desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Luna failed to show it is more likely than not she would 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).

As stated in the courts October 19, 2020 order, the stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.