Case Name: Odilia ALVAREZ-CORRAL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-29
Citations: 704 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 14-72299
Parties: Odilia ALVAREZ-CORRAL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
Odilia ALVAREZ-CORRAL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72299
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed November 29, 2017
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Juria L. • Jones, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial At torneys, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA
Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Odilia Alvarez-Corral, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an expedited removal order reinstated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and an immigration judge's subsequent determination that Alvarez-Corral did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not have jurisdiction to consider Alvarez-Corral's collateral attack on her underlying expedited removal order. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008).
The immigration judge's decision is sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of due process. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004).
The immigration judge's reasonable fear determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2016). Alvarez-Corral denied suffering past persecution or torture in Mexico. Alvarez-Corral speculated that her ex-boyfriend might harm her if she returned to Mexico, yet she identified no specific threats and admitted to having no recent contact with him. Also, Alvarez-Corral mentioned only hearing stories of the Mexican government and police's ineffectiveness, but she has no individualized reason to think that it would acquiesce in her being harmed. We conclude that this evidence would not compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude that Alvarez-Corral had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. See id. at 833.
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.