Mayra Carolina Garcia, aka Sabrina Michelle Garcia; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MAYRA CAROLINA GARCIA, aka
Sabrina Michelle Garcia; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70729
Agency Nos. A098-953-391
A098-953-392
A098-953-393
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Mayra Carolina Garcia and her daughters, Vivian Marcela Rivera
Garcia and Katherine Vanessa Rodriguez Garcia, natives and citizens of El
Salvador , petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying their application for
FILED
DEC 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-70729
asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition
for review.
Petitioners contend the Board denied them due process by failing to address
a country report supporting their claim that women and children are mistreated in
El Salvador. There is no clear evidence to rebut the presumption that the Board
considered the evidence in the record. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068
(9th Cir. 2007). Regardless, the Board denied relief based on a failure to establish
a nexus to a protected ground, and the country report is not relevant to that
determination.
We decline to address petitioner’s unexhausted contention that the IJ did not
comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 by failing to send a copy of the asylum application
to the Department of State for review. Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121,
1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider a claim that Board did not have first
opportunity to consider).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --