Veronica Natali Valencia- Vasquez 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).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERONICA NATALI VALENCIA-
VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71775
Agency No. A098-936-543
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Veronica Natali Valencia-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DL/Research 08-71775 2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
We reject Valencia-Vasquez’s claim that she is eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal based upon an anti-gang political opinion or based upon
her membership in a particular social group. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849,
854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.
2008). Accordingly, because Valencia-Vasquez failed to demonstrate that she was
persecuted or fears future persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny
the petition as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581
F.3d at 856.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Valencia-Vasquez failed to establish it was more likely than not that she would be

-- 2 of 3 --

DL/Research 08-71775 3
tortured by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
Valencia-Vasquez’s due process claim fails because, contrary to her
contention, the BIA issued a reasoned decision and not a streamlined order
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --