United States v. 2020-02-07 | 16-71156 | YENNI PINEDA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YENNI AMERICA PINEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-71156

Agency No. A088-965-513

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Yenni America Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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

FEB 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda failed
to establish that the harm she experienced or fears in El Salvador was or would be
on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011)
(even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must
still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Pineda’s contention as to a proposed
social group that she did not raise to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency). Thus, Pineda’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Pineda failed to show that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.