NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, AKA Maria 

Garcia, AKA Maria Guadalupe Garcia 

Lopez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73375 

Agency No. A205-312-852 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Maria Martinez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-73375 

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

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.

2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration 

proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the 

petition for review. 

Martinez-Lopez’s challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fail. See 

Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that 

the BIA did not violate petitioners’ due process rights by streamlining their 

appeal); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error 

to prevail on a due process claim).

To the extent Martinez-Lopez challenges the agency’s determination that she

failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely 

filing of her asylum application, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Martinez-Lopez’s asylum claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Martinez-Lopez 

failed to establish she suffered harm in Mexico that rose to the level of persecution. 

See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that 
3 18-73375 

persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment 

our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that 

Martinez-Lopez failed to establish that any harm she fears in Mexico would be on 

account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 

2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated 

by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected 

ground.”). Thus, Martinez-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Martinez-Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture 

speculative).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinez-Lopez’s remaining 

contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts 

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they 

reach). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.