FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 23 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLORIA MARTENYS MALDONADO- No. 18-71407 CRUZ, Agency No. A206-450-049 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 20, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Gloria Maldonado-Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Maldonado-Cruz was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, because she did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground with regard to (A) her grandfather, (B) her ex-boyfriend, or (C) the Mara 18 gang. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185-86, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). A. The record does not compel a conclusion that the harm inflicted on Maldonado-Cruz by her grandfather (“slapp[ing] her three times, withdr[awing] her from a university, and forc[ing] her to leave his home because she allowed herself to become pregnant by her former boyfriend”) rose to the level of past persecution.1 See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (Persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment 1 Maldonado-Cruz does not argue in her opening brief that she has a well- founded fear of future persecution because of her grandfather. Thus, this issue is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if not waived, the record does not compel a conclusion that Maldonado-Cruz has a well-founded fear of future persecution, because there is no evidence that her grandfather has any interest in her. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 our society regards as offensive.” (quoting Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998))); see also Gu, 454 F.3d at 1021-22 (concluding that a three-day detention, a two-hour interrogation, and a beating with a rod did not compel a conclusion of past persecution). B. The record does not compel a conclusion that the harm inflicted on Maldonado-Cruz by her ex-boyfriend was on account of her membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2016). Maldonado-Cruz failed to identify any evidence in the record that her proposed social groups (single young women in Honduras ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals