NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORENA ESPINOZA AGUILAR, AKA 

Lorena Espinoza Andrade, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70260 

Agency No. A208-309-187 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted December 11, 2019

Pasadena, California

Before: BOGGS,** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Lorena Espinoza Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal 

from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition.

1. The IJ refused to review the documents that Espinoza proffered at her 

hearing, simply assuming that they only showed that “Mexico has a lot of crime.” 

We assume arguendo that Espinoza, who appeared pro se and was detained at the 

time of her hearing, was thereby denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence 

on her behalf. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (4)(B); Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 

727-28 (9th Cir. 2000). But, even assuming a due process violation, Espinoza must 

establish prejudice from the exclusion of evidence to obtain relief. See GomezVelazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018). Espinoza makes no argument 

about what the documents contained and never suggests what relevant fact they 

would have established had the IJ admitted them. “Although, to show prejudice, we 

do not always require an explanation of ‘exactly what evidence’ a petitioner would 

have presented, we do require at least some indication of what a petitioner would 

have sought to establish had she been allowed to fully present her case.” Garcia 

Apostol v. Gonzales, 126 F. App’x 818, 821 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Colmenar v. 

INS, 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000)).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, on the record 

before the IJ, Espinoza failed to show that she faces persecution in Mexico on 

account of a protected ground. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 

2001) (stating that such a showing is required for a grant of asylum and withholding). 
3 

Espinoza testified that she and her family suffered mistreatment in Mexico by a gang 

because she “had a business and they came to extort [her] and [she] didn’t want to 

pay them.” Victimization for economic reasons does not establish persecution on 

account of a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Espinoza 

failed to demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief. The evidence does not compel the 

conclusion that Espinoza would more likely than not face torture if she returned to 

Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.