Gloria Esperanza Portillo De Sanchez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA ESPERANZA PORTILLO DE
SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71900
Agency No. A200-771-406
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Gloria Esperanza Portillo de Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
* 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).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71900
We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Portillo de
Sanchez failed to establish a nexus between her past experiences or the future harm
she fears in El Salvador and a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey,
555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (under the REAL ID Act, an applicant must
prove a protected ground is at least ‘one central reason’ for persecution); see also
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We reject Portillo de Sanchez’s
due process contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard in the
analysis of her claims. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, her asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --