Karina Betzaida Mendoza-Deras v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINA BETZAIDA MENDOZA-DERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70793
Agency No. A208-163-023
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Karina Betzaida Mendoza-Deras, 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 applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70793
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Mendoza-Deras failed
to establish she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“mistreatment motivated
purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”); 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”). Thus, Mendoza-Deras’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because
Mendoza-Deras failed to show it is more likely than not she will 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). We reject as unsupported by
the record Mendoza-Deras’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal
standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of her CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --