Case Name: Maria de los Angeles HERNANDEZ, aka Maria Delosange Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-02
Citations: 586 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 13-72330
Parties: Maria de los Angeles HERNANDEZ, aka Maria Delosange Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAYY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
Maria de los Angeles HERNANDEZ, aka Maria Delosange Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72330.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
John Martin Pope, Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Aric Allan Anderson, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAYY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria De Los Angeles Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Hernandez conceded that she did not establish past persecution because she did not suffer domestic abuse in Mexico, the country of removal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Hernandez failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will face future persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative); Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir.2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on the applicant to show that relocation would be unreasonable). Accordingly, her withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.