Sandra Yolinda Gutierrez 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).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA YOLINDA GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73147
Agency No. A097-606-852
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Yolinda Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NED/Research 08-73147 2
withholding of removal, and protection 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.
Gutierrez failed to raise any substantive arguments in her opening brief with
respect to the BIA’s dispositive determination that her asylum claim is time-barred.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed waived).
We reject Gutierrez’ claim that she is eligible for withholding of removal
based on membership in a particular social group or on account of her anti-gang
political opinion due to the problems she had with gang members in Tegucigalpa
and San Pedro Sula. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.
2008) (rejecting social group claim based on opposition to gang violence); Barrios
v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (refusal to join a gang does not
amount to a political opinion). In addition, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that the assault on Gutierrez as she left Honduras was not

-- 2 of 3 --

NED/Research 08-73147 3
on account of a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2004) (“Random, isolated criminal acts . . . do not establish persecution”).
Accordingly, because Gutierrez failed to demonstrate that she was
persecuted or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the
petition as to the withholding of removal claim. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief based on its
finding that Gutierrez did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation
of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (acquiescence requires “both actual
knowledge and willful blindness”) (internal quotations omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --