Case ID: f-appx_621/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Teresa De Jesus LUNA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
    Daniel Angel Revoredo, Law Offices of Daniel Revoredo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, Suzanne Nardone, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Teresa de Jesus Luna, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from 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 the agency’s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Luna testified that she was threatened in El Salvador by a man who had caused the death of a member of her family. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Luna failed to meet her burden of showing that she suffered past persecution or feared future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (protected ground must be ‘one central reason’ for persecution); Ayala, 640 F.3d at 1097 (even assuming membership in a particular social group, petitioner must show persecution on account of membership in that group). Thus, Luna’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010).

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