Gloria E. Loza, a.k.a. Gloria Elsi Loza Guevara 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GLORIA E. LOZA, a.k.a. Gloria Elsi Loza
Guevara,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70563
Agency No. A094-308-246
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gloria E. Loza, 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, withholding of
FILED
JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70563 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
Loza contends her life was threatened on account of imputed political
opinion. Even assuming Loza’s credibility, the agency reasonably concluded that
the murder of Loza’s husband and the threats against her were based on a personal
vendetta. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001)
(evidence indicated attack on petitioner and disappearance of aunt were due to
personal vendetta and report of rape, not imputed political opinion). Further, the
agency reasonably concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show a statutory
nexus with regard to Loza’s brothers’ deaths. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2009) (evidence revealed no causal connection between
protected ground and attack on petitioner). Thus, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Loza did not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See id.
at 740 (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central
reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Loza’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172
(9th Cir. 2005).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70563 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Loza failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the government if removed to
El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --