Anna Cecilila Portillo-De Mendoza v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA CECILILA PORTILLO-DE
MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72378
Agency No. A095-118-378
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Anna Cecilila Portillo-de Mendoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JK/Research 07-72378 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Portillo-de
Mendoza did not establish past persecution because the harassment and groping
that she suffered at the hands of gang members in El Salvador did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Portillo-de
Mendoza failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because her
similarly situated immediate family members continue to reside in El Salvador
without significant harm. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395-96 (9th Cir. 1996).
Because Portillo-de Mendoza did not establish eligibility for asylum, it
necessarily follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
because Portillo-de Mendoza failed to establish that it is more likely than not she

-- 2 of 3 --

JK/Research 07-72378 3
will be tortured if she returns to El Salvador. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --