N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C LAR ISSA SAR

AYENS C O R

ADOM EJIA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72607 Age n c y No. A098-896-170
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C la rissa Saray e n s C ora do-M e

j ia , a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing he r a

p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a s y lum an d withholding of rem ova l a nd de ny ing he r re que st for a



# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).re m and. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a b use of disc re tion theB IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re m and, Mov

sisian v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005), a n d re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l findings re ga

rding e l igibility

for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l, Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. W ith re spe c t to C ora do-M e jia ’ s FM LN c la im , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t C ora do-M e

jia fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution be c a use the thre ats she and he r fam ily re c e ive d did not rise

to the le v e l of pe rse c ution. Se e H

ox ha v . Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th C i r. 2003) (unfulfille d thre ats c onstitute d ha ra ssm e nt rat

he r tha n pe rse c ution). In light of this
c onc lusion, C ora do-M e

jia ’ s c onte ntion tha

t she is e ntitle d to a

pre sum ption of future pe rse c ut ion ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se e Molina-Estrada v
. IN S, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th C ir. 2002). Furthe r, substa n tia l e vide n c e supports the a ge n c y ’ s finding that C ora do-M e

jia did not e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution. Se e Hak e e m v . IN S , 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ [a ] n a pplic ant’ s c la im of pe rse c ution upon re turn is we ak e ne d, e v e n unde rc ut, whe n sim ila rly -situa te d fam ily m e m be rs c ontinue to livein the c ountry without inc ide nt” ). Ac c ordingly , he r a sy lum c la im

fa ils.

1 2
- 7 2 6 0 7 2B e c a

use C o ra do-M e

jia fa ile d to m e e t

the lowe r sta

nda rd of proof for a sy lum , he r c la im for withholding of rem ova l ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se e Ze h aty e , 453 F.3d a t 1190. Fina lly , the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to c onside r C ora doM e j ia ’ s ge n de r-ba se d

c la im
. Se e Eide -K

ahay on v . IN

S, 86 F.3d 147, 149 (9th C i r. 1996) (c ourt re vie ws for a buse of disc re tion a

nd will not disturb the

B IA’ s ruling unle ss it a c te d “ arbitra

rily , irrat iona lly , or c ontra ry to la w ” ). W e re

je c t C ora doM e j ia ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA e rre d

in not c onside ring the State De pa rtm e nt’ s 2011 c ountry

re port. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2
- 7 2 6 0 7 3