NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDIA VIOLETA CORTEZ- No. 22-840 BARRERA; MEILING VIOLETA PEREZ- Agency Nos. CORTEZ; JOSE LEONARDO PEREZ- A215-584-645 CORTEZ, A215-584-646 A215-584-647 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 11, 2023 San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Claudia Cortez-Barrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding a denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Her two minor children, Meiling and Jose Perez-Cortez, are included * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. in her application as derivatives. We deny the petition. 1. Cortez argues that her due process rights were violated because the IJ failed to inform her of the availability of pre-conclusion voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2). See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780 F.3d 906, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that an IJ must inform applicants in removal proceedings of any forms of immigration relief, including voluntary departure, for which they are “apparently eligible”). But Cortez affirmatively waived any right to be informed of her apparent eligibility for other forms of relief when she waived a “formal reading and explanation and formal advisal of rights” at her hearing before the IJ. And Cortez, who was represented by counsel in her removal proceedings, does not argue that this waiver was not “considered and intelligent.” United States v. Cisneros-Rodriguez, 813 F.3d 748, 757 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Gomez, 757 F.3d 885, 893 (9th Cir. 2014)); see also Troncoso-Oviedo v. Garland, 43 F.4th 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the IJ did not violate the petitioner’s due process rights when relying on his counsel’s representations regarding a waiver of claims where the petitioner did “not contend that his counsel was ineffective or that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary”). 2. Cortez next argues that the agency erred in denying her asylum and withholding of removal. But the agency’s conclusion that the gang targeting her for extortion was motivated by general criminality and a desire to extract money rather than by her membership in the particular social group (“PSG”) of 2 22-840 “adult female member[s] of the Cortez-Barrera family” is supported by substantial evidence. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “desire to be free from . . . random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Cortez has provided no family-related reason why the gang would have sought to harm her and has instead stated her belief that it targeted her …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals