Claudia Lizzette Landeverde- Flores, a.k.a. Claudia L. Landaverde- Flores 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIA LIZZETTE LANDEVERDE-
FLORES, a.k.a. Claudia L. Landaverde-
Flores,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74313
Agency No. A095-718-912
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Lizzette Landeverde-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74313 2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the BIA’s order denying her motion to
accept a late filed brief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due
process claims, Ram v. INS 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Landeverde-
Flores failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of an anti-gang political opinion or membership in a
particular social group. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 745-47; see also Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Landeverde-Flores failed
to demonstrate that she was persecuted or fears future persecution on account of a
protected ground, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding of
removal claims. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74313 3
We lack jurisdiction to consider Landeverde-Flores’ CAT claim because she
did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Landeverde-Flores’ contention that the
BIA abused its discretion in refusing to accept her late-filed brief. See Zetino v.
Holder, 596 F.3d 517, 524-25 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, we reject Landeverde-
Flores’ due process contention regarding the BIA’s refusal to accept the brief
because the BIA reached the merits of her appeal and affirmed the IJ’s finding in a
reasoned decision. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir.
2006) (holding that no due process violation exists unless “the proceeding was so
fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his
case”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --