United States v. 2020-05-13 | 18-72950 | NORA CORNEJO-DE FRANCO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORA ESTELA CORNEJO-DE FRANCO;
et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72950

Agency Nos. A208-170-459
A208-170-313
A208-170-456
A208-170-457
A208-170-458

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Nora Cornejo-De Franco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se on behalf of herself, her husband, and her three children for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

*
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

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial
evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Cornejo-De Franco
failed to establish that the harm she and her family suffered or fear in El Salvador
was or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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, Cornejo-De Franco’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
In her opening brief, Cornejo-De Franco does not challenge the BIA’s denial
of her CAT claim. See Lopez-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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.