SONIA PEREIRA DE SOUZA NUNES, AKA Sonia Pereira de Souza Nunez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONIA PEREIRA DE SOUZA NUNES,
AKA Sonia Pereira de Souza Nunez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71165
Agency No. A208-924-113
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Sonia Pereira De Souza Nunes, a native and citizen of Brazil, 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 Torture
* 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
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71165
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pereira De
Souza Nunes failed to establish that the harm she experienced or fears was or
would be on account of a protected ground, including membership in an advocacy-
based particular social group aimed at helping women. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive],
direct or circumstantial”); 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 show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”); 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, Pereira
De Souza Nunes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this
disposition, we need not reach her remaining contentions regarding the merits of
these claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
In her opening brief, Pereira De Souza Nunes does not contest, and therefore
waives, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT protection. See Lopez-

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71165
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --