JENNIFER PATRICIA HERNANDEZ, AKA Cindy Angelica Botello v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

15-72824Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 23, 2018

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENNIFER PATRICIA HERNANDEZ,
AKA Cindy Angelica Botello,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72824
Agency No. A088-349-865
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jennifer Patricia Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72824
substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez
failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Hernandez’s proposed social group that she raises for the
first time in her opening brief. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.
2013) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings
below). Thus, Hernandez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.