Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0795-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosa Guillermina BLANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73814.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 16, 2015.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office Of Ricci And Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Rosarme Perry, U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, Trial Chief Counsel 'Ice, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
    
      Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosa Guillermina Blanco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Blanco does not challenge the BIA’s finding that she did not establish past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Blanco failed to establish that a protected ground, including membership in a social group or a political opinion, would be a central reason for her being targeted. See 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) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from ... random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). In light of our conclusion, we need not reach Blanco’s other contentions regarding withholding of removal. Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails.

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