Case ID: f-appx_709/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vilma Leticia Santos DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73452
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    James Todd Bennett, El Cerrito, CA, for Petitioner
    Jessica Dawgert, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vilma Leticia Santos Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Santos Diaz’s challenge to the agency’s .denial of administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santos Diaz failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (applicant seeking withholding of removal must prove that a protected ground was a reason for persecution); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Santos Diaz’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Santos Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject Santos Diaz’s contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to rule on her “motion to remand” as raised in her appeal brief to the BIA. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.