Veronica Del Carmen Ramirez- Cruz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERONICA DEL CARMEN RAMIREZ-
CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-708
Agency No.
A209-145-093
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Veronica Del Carmen Ramirez-Cruz,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
* 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).
1 The Clerk will amend the docket to change petitioner’s name to Veronica
Del Carmen Ramirez-Cruz, in accordance with the agency decision, filed at
Docket Entry No. 8.
FILED
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-708
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez-
Cruz failed to establish she was or would be persecuted 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, Ramirez-Cruz’s asylum claim fails. Because Ramirez-Cruz
failed to establish any nexus at all, she also failed to satisfy the standard for
withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60
(9th Cir. 2017).
Ramirez-Cruz’s new proposed particular social group is not properly
before the court because she failed to raise it before the agency. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-
Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a
non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).
We do not address Ramirez-Cruz’s contentions regarding harm rising to
the level of persecution because the BIA did not deny relief on that ground. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-708
agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ramirez-Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009);
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized
evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the petitioner and
insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --