N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANDR A NOEM I AR C HILA-M ENDEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 15-70158 Age n c y No. A206-716-613 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 Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Sandra Noe m i Arc hila -M e nde z , a native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED OCT 22 2015 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Arc hila M e n de z d id not e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of he r m e m be rship in a soc ia l group of HIV positive wom e n. Se eN

agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th C ir. 2003) (be ing

“ te a se d, bothe re d, disc rim inat e d a ga inst a nd ha ra sse d,” a bse nt phy sic a l ha

rm , did not c om pe l finding of pa st pe rse c ution); se e also C astro-Martine

z v . Holde r , 674 F.3d 1073, 1077-78 (9th C ir. 2011) (no we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution ba se d on pe titione r’ s HIV positive

sta tus). Substa

ntia l e vide n c e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Arc h ila -M e nde z did not e s ta blish pa s t pe rse c ution or a we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of he r re s ista n c e to ga ng m e m be rs’ atte m pts to involve

he r in a n e xtortion sc h e m e . Se eGu v . Gonzale z , 454 F.3d 1014, 1021-22 (9th C ir. 2006) (pe titione r fa ile d to pre se nt c om pe lling, obje c tive e vide nc e de m onstra

ting a we l l-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c o nside r Arc hila -M e nde z ’ s c onte ntion tha t she will be pe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of he r m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of Gua

t e m a la n wom e n be c a use she did

1 5 - 7 0 1 5 8 2not ra ise it to theB IA. Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir.

2004). Thus, wede ny

the pe t ition a s to Arc hila -M e nde z ’ s a sy lum c la im . B e c a use Arc hila -M e nde z fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , he r withholding of rem o v a l c la im ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se eZe h aty e , 453 F.3d a t 1190 (pe t itione r’ s burde n of proof for withholding of re m ova l is m ore de m anding tha n a sy lum). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion ove r a

ny c ha lle n ge Arc hila -M e n de z m ake s to the B IA’ s de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n be c a use she did not file

a pe tition for re vie w of tha

t orde r. Se eAndia v . Ashc roft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a lso la c k jurisdic tion to c o n side r Arc hila -M e nde z ’ s c onte ntion tha t she ha d ina d e quate tim e to pre pa

re he r c a se be fore the IJ be c a u s e she fa ile d to ra ise this argum e nt to theB IA. Se e Barron , 358 F.3d a t 677-78. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 5 - 7 0 1 5 8 3